Heinrichs.indd Relative Influence of the LibQUAL+™ Dimensions on Satisfaction: A Subgroup Analysis John H. Heinrichs, Thomas Sharkey, and Jeen-Su Lim This research study investigates the influence of the identified LibQUAL+™ dimensions on various aspects of the user’s satisfaction with the Aca- demic Library at Wayne State University. Multivariate regression analysis results show statistically significant impact of LibQUAL+™ dimensions on user satisfaction. Moderated regression analysis results show the moderating impact of various demographic variables on the relationships between LibQUAL+™ dimensions and user satisfaction. The results of this research can be used to alter resource allocation expenditures to improve user satisfaction. he changing focus of today’s library requires greater un- derstanding and responsive- ness to the needs of customers or users. As Valerie Ziethaml, A. Para- suraman, and Leonard L. Berry stated, “Only customers judge quality, all other judgments are irrelevant.”1 To increase understanding and responsiveness by libraries, new assessment survey instru- ments are being developed and tested. LibQUAL+™ is one of those instruments that was approved by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) as a member- ship-centered effort. LibQUAL+™ is used to determine user satisfaction with overall quality of service, satisfaction with treatment by library personnel, and satisfaction with learning, research, and teaching needs being addressed.2 Using the findings from this survey instrument, many research libraries can identify user needs and develop appropriate methods to respond to them and thereby develop a strong constituency for the library. To fully understand and utilize the LibQUAL+™ information, research libraries require detailed analysis and insight generation. One method for exploring these data is subgroup analysis, which may be useful in understanding the needs of the differ- ent constituent groups. This article pres- ents such analysis of the LibQUAL+™ data by evaluating the relative influence of each of the four dimensions on the three identified components of user sat- isfaction. In addition, this study evaluates whether the relationship between these four dimensions and user satisfaction varies by various user characteristics including electronic usage, library usage, gender, and academic group. John H. Heinrichs is an Assistant Professor of Library and Information Science at Wayne State University; e- mail: ai2824@wayne.edu. Thomas Sharkey is an Associate Professor of Management; e-mail: tsharke@utnet. utoledo.edu, and Jeen-Su Lim is Professor of Marketing and e-Commerce; e-mail: jlim@utoledo.edu, both at The University of Toledo. 248 mailto:jlim@utoledo.edu http:utoledo.edu mailto:ai2824@wayne.edu Relative Influence of the LibQUAL+™ Dimensions on Satisfaction 249 Literature Review Library research literature has begun to explore the impact of various dimensions of library operations on various elements of the perceived user satisfaction.3 Four dimensions of user satisfaction have been identified by the LibQUAL+™ study, yet the relative influence of these four dimen- sions on overall satisfaction measures has not been studied in depth. These four dimensions are access to information, affect of service, library as a place, and personal control. It is believed that the four dimensions directly influence the level of perceived user satisfaction. Yet, how these four dimensions contribute to user satis- faction has not been fully explored. LibQUAL+™ The LibQUAL+™ instrument is a user- centric tool used by the library sector to measure and assess the performance of library organizations in the delivery of service to their users. It is based on the research and development endeavor at ARL in collaboration with the Texas A&M University.4 This instrument builds on the marketing research performed by Berry, Parasuraman, and Ziethaml, who developed the ServQual instrument.5 The LibQUAL+™ instrument has been admin- istered in North America as an ongoing service from ARL. The large number of ARL members that participated in this survey allows generalization and use of the information at a local level. The LibQUAL+™ instrument has sev- eral key dimensions: access to informa- tion, affect of service, library as a place, and personal control. The dimension called access to information refers to the overall access to information at the time it is required by the user. The affect of ser- vice dimension deals with the library em- ployees and the a ention they provide the user, as well as their a itude, willingness to help, and ability to provide service. The library as a place dimension focuses on the reflective nature of the physical library facilities as they fill the requirements for studying, meeting, and contemplative research work. And the personal control dimension refers to the ability of the user to obtain information independently with conveniently accessible tools. User Characteristics One of the interesting aspects of research in this area is exploring the impact of the characteristics of users. Some of the user characteristics that have been studied in the past have included gender, academic groups, electronic usage, and library usage. • Gender: Colleen Cook and Bruce Thompson reported that the LibQUAL+™ scores did not differ across gender.6 Yet, in their survey of three libraries in Penn- sylvania, Patience L. Simmonds and Syed Saad Andaleeb found that females use the library more o en than males.7 Steve Hiller, at the University of Washington (UW), reported that the university’s in- ternal library surveys detected gender differences whereas the LibQUAL+™ results from UW did not.8 The reported difference between gender at UW was significant in the areas of computer ac- cess and library instruction. It appears from both of these studies that gender differences may occur, but results at this point do not let library researchers draw a firm conclusion. As such, gender differ- ences represent a potential area of further exploration. • Academic groups: Various academic user groups have different expectations from libraries. Eric C. Shoaf described the findings from the Brown University focus groups that indicated faculty spend less time in the library and depend less on the library for research than had been commonly believed. The study indicated that just the opposite is true for graduate students.9 Hiller’s results indicate that at UW, there were important differences in satisfaction between different academic groups.1 0 Given the requirement for research among faculty and the student requirement for completing course work, one might expect that the requirements would be similar for these groups, yet http:groups.10 250 College & Research Libraries May 2005 the current studies highlight different pa erns of usage. This study examines these differences in detail. • Electronic usage: Various studies have reported that students are using the Internet as an increasingly important source of information and prefer using online resources.11 Kimberly B. Kelley and Gloria J. Orr have reported that students at The University of Maryland’s Univer- sity College favor the use of electronic resources and their student usage pa erns are consistent with the national trends.12 Hiller reported a similar pa ern at UW.13 The ARL statistics reported that ARL libraries are responding to the increas- ing demand for electronic resources by spending almost $100 million on them. This expenditure accounted for over 12.9 percent of ARL libraries materials budgets. Further, the ARL stated that the resource allocation for electronic resources is increasing at a rapid rate.14 Using structural equation modeling techniques, Anne Martensen and Lars Gronholdt developed a predictive model indicating the positive impact electronic resources had on both user satisfaction and perceived value.15 Although there is a positive relationship, clearly, increasing funding for electronic resources is only one determinant of library user satisfac- tion. • Library usage: Library usage tradi- tionally has been tracked as a measure of performance. Yet, the performance measurement in the libraries has be- come more complex with the advent of electronic usage. Cook and Thompson reported that from a national perspective, the LibQUAL+™ scores did not show a difference across the participants in their frequency of library use.16 Susan Edwards and Mairead Browne found that librar- ians underestimate the importance of user expectations about computer-based services (electronic usage) and tend to overestimate user expectations about person-to-person relationships as a key component of satisfaction with library usage.17 Studies of satisfaction by gender, aca- demic group, electronic usage, and library usage have reported mixed results. The studies of the relationship between gen- der and satisfaction have produced mixed results. The report by academic groups tends to highlight the role of faculty and assume students rely on the Internet. Electronic usage and resource allocation for electronic collections is increasing, and yet, physical usage of library collec- tions and services remains an important element of overall operations and staffing requirements of the library. Hypotheses Development The hypotheses for this study deal with the perceptions of users regarding the three components of user satisfaction with libraries: the overall quality of service, satisfied with the way I am treated, and satisfied with the library support for my learning, research, and/or teaching needs. For each of the hypotheses, the main argument used is that a higher level of service provided by the library on each of the dimensions of LibQUAL+™ re- sults in a higher level of user satisfaction across all groups. Also, the argument is made that there is an interaction effect of user characteristics on the relationship between LibQUAL+™ dimensions and user satisfaction. • Hypothesis 1: Overall, the dimen- sions of access to information, affect of service, library as a place, and personal control are related to (1) “satisfaction with the overall quality of service pro- vided,” (2) “satisfaction with the way I am treated,” and (3) “satisfaction with the library support for my learning, research, and/or teaching needs.” • Hypothesis 2: There will be inter- action effects between the identified dimensions and gender on (1) “satisfac- tion with the overall quality of service provided,” (2) “satisfaction with the way I am treated,” and (3) “satisfaction with the library support for my needs.” • Hypothesis 3: There will be inter- action effects between the identified http:usage.17 http:value.15 http:trends.12 http:resources.11 Relative Influence of the LibQUAL+™ Dimensions on Satisfaction 251 dimensions and academic groups on (1) “satisfaction with the overall quality of service provided,” (2) “satisfied with the way I am treated,” and (3) “satisfaction with the library support for my needs.” • Hypothesis 4: There will be interac- tion effects between the identified dimen- sions and library usage on (1) “satisfac- tion with the overall quality of service provided,” (2) “satisfaction with the way I am treated,” and (3) “satisfied with the library support for my needs.” • Hypothesis 5: There will be interac- tion effects between the identified dimen- sions and electronic usage on (1) “satis- faction with the overall quality of service provided,” (2) “satisfaction with the way I am treated,” and (3) “satisfaction with the library support for my needs.” Research Method Data from University Libraries at Wayne State University were used for this study. This university is one of the largest state- funded urban universities in Michigan and comprises five different libraries including the medical, law, engineering, undergraduate, and graduate librar- ies. Survey participants were asked to report their perceived level of satisfac- tion with the overall quality of service provided; their perceived satisfaction with the way the library supports their learning, research, or teaching needs; and their perceived satisfaction with the way they were treated. They then rated their perceived satisfaction regarding twenty-five specific questions. These questions asked participants to rate their perceived satisfaction using a Likert scale with responses ranging 1, defined as low, to 9, defined as high. Sample The sample for this study included undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, and library and academic staff at Wayne State University. A total of 610 participants completed the survey. Key characteristics of the participants that were captured in this study include gen- der, academic group, and the frequency of their use of library physical and electronic resources. The participants who completed the study consisted of 314 (51.5%) females and 296 (48.5%) males. The academic group included 208 (34.1%) graduate and undergraduate students and 402 (65.9%) faculty and staff. The participants described their usage of the library elec- tronic and on-premise library resources using a survey scale, which classified us- age as daily (1), weekly (2), monthly (3), quarterly (4), and never (5). The median response for electronic usage of library resources was weekly (2), and the median response for on-premise library resource usage was monthly (3). Descriptive Statistics and Reliability The survey used in this study was the LibQUAL+™ national survey admin- istered by Texas A&M University and sponsored by ARL. The administering organization performed factor analysis on the entire data set and reported four dimensions. It named the dimensions ac- cess to information (AI), affect of service (AS), library as a place (LP), and personal control (PC). Reliability analysis was performed on the national sample, and Cronbach alpha was calculated for each dimension and reported.18 For the entire sample, the Cronbach alpha for AS was .946, AI was .758, LP was .929, and PC was .869. To maintain consistency with the national reporting and comparabil- ity to other academic libraries, these four dimensions were used in this study. In addition, the final items reported in the original LibQUAL+™ study are used in calculating means and reliabilities for each of the dimensions in this study. The AI dimension consists of four of the survey questions. Reliability analysis was performed using the sample of 610 respondents and a .730 alpha was calcu- lated. The AS dimension consisted of the final seven survey items of the dimension. Reliability analysis was performed and a .928 alpha was calculated. The LP dimen- http:reported.18 252 College & Research Libraries May 2005 sion consisted of the final four items and showed a reliability alpha score of .869. The PC dimension consisted of the final five items of the dimension and showed a reliability alpha score of .878. The reli- ability analysis is similar to the national reporting reliability analysis. To gain the improved ratings in the reliability scores of the defined dimensions, the research- ers deemed that the modified items in the dimensions would be used in the subsequent subgroup moderated regres- sion analysis. For the independent and dependent variables used in this study, the cell means, standard deviations, and Cronbach alpha reliability scores were calculated. Table 1 presents these values for each of the survey items. The cell means for each of the dimensions ranged from 5.95 to 6.67 based on using a 9-point Likert-type scale with the value of 1 being defined as “low” and the value of 9 being defined as “high.” The cell mean values for the survey items ranged from a low of 5.76 (Q#13: A place for reflection and creativity) to a high of 7.29 (Q#19: Convenient business hours). The Cronbach alphas are greater than .869 with the exception of .730 for the AI dimension. These alpha values indicate acceptable reliability for the scale items measuring each of the dimensions.19 Table 2 presents the mean scores for the three dependent variables across different levels of the user characteristic variables of gender, academic groups, library resources usage, and electronic resources usage. The first dependent vari- able, “Satisfied with the overall quality of service provided,” scored an overall mean rating of 6.48. The mean ratings for gender groups were 6.52 for females and 6.43 for males. The mean ratings ranged from 6.36 to 6.72 for the academic groups, from 6.33 to 6.49 for the library resource usage groups and from 6.34 to 6.67 for the elec- tronic resources usage groups. The sec- ond dependent variable, “Satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or teaching needs,” scored an overall rating of 6.23 with a range of 6.17 to 6.29 for the gender groups, a range of 5.92 to 6.68 for the academic groups, a range of 5.91 to 6.41 for the library resource usage groups, and a range of 6.07 to 6.56 for the electronic resources usage groups. The third dependent variable, “Satisfied with the way I am treated,” scored an overall rating of 6.76 with a range of 6.63 to 6.89 for the gender groups, a range of 6.56 to 7.34 for the academic groups, a range of 6.46 to 7.00 for the library resource usage groups, and a range of 6.61 to 7.13 for the electronic resources usage groups. Classification To study the potential interaction effects of the various user characteristics and to facilitate the analysis, the user char- acteristic variables were recoded into two groups. The groups were logically related and of a similar size. Each group was classified as either a zero (0) or a one (1). The gender variable was divided into females and males. The female group was coded zero (0) and represents 51.5 percent of the respondents; the male group was coded one (1) and represents 48.5 percent of the respondents. The aca- demic group variable was divided into students and faculty/staff. The student group was coded zero (0) and repre- sents 34.1 percent of the respondents; the faculty/staff group was coded one (1) and represents 65.9 percent of the respondents. The library resource usage variable was recoded into infrequent and frequent use. The infrequent use group (monthly, quarterly, and never) was coded zero (0) and represents 52.0 percent of the respondents; the frequent use group (daily and weekly) was coded one (1) and represents 47.4 percent of the respondents. The electronic resources us- age variable was divided into infrequent and frequent use. The infrequent use group (monthly, quarterly, and never) was coded zero (0) and represents 32.6 percent of the respondents; the frequent use (daily and weekly) was coded one (1) and represents 66.7 percent of the respondents. http:dimensions.19 Relative Influence of the LibQUAL+™ Dimensions on Satisfaction 253 TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities of LibQUAL+™ Dimensions Measurement Items Mean Standard Deviation Reliability (Alpha) Satisfied with the overall quality of the service provided 6.48 1.59 Satisfied with the way I am treated 6.76 1.76 Satisfied with library support for my learning, research, and/or teaching needs 6.23 1.94 Access to Information 6.49 1.21 .730 3. Complete run of journal titles 6.16 1.89 8. Timely document delivery / interlibrary loans 6.44 1.81 9. Interdisciplinary library needs being addressed 6.01 1.51 19. Convenient business hours 7.29 1.59 22. Comprehensive print collections 6.26 1.61 Affect of Service 6.64 1.14 .928 1. Willingness to help users 6.60 1.79 4. Employees who are consistently courteous 6.92 1.62 11. Dependability in handling users’ service problems 6.54 1.58 14. Giving users individual attention 6.46 1.69 15. Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion 6.65 1.71 17. Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions 6.67 1.73 18. Readiness to respond to users’ questions 6.79 2.68 20. Employees who instill confidence in users 6.40 2.64 24. Employees who understand the needs of their users 6.57 1.68 Library as a Place 5.95 1.53 .869 2. Space that facilitates quiet study 6.15 1.89 10. A haven for quiet and solitude 6.03 1.85 13. A place for reflection and creativity 5.76 1.73 21. A comfortable and inviting location 6.11 1.87 23. A contemplative environment 5.90 1.75 Personal Control 6.67 1.30 .878 5. Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office 6.45 1.85 6. Modern equipment that lets me easily access the information I need 6.65 1.52 7. A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own 6.78 1.65 12. Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own 6.63 1.59 16. Making information easily accessible for independent use 6.70 1.48 25. Convenient access to library collections 6.60 1.68 254 College & Research Libraries May 2005 Results The hypotheses were explored using the moderated regression analysis technique suggested by Leona S. Aiken and Stephen G. West20 and James Jaccard, K. Wan Choi, and Robert Turrisi.21 The calculated results of variance inflation factors for independent variables are less than 1.5 for the “Satisfied with the way I am treated” variable, 2.6 for the “Satisfied with library support for my needs” variable, and 2.6 for the “Overall quality of service provid- ed” variable, showing that there should be no concern about multicollinearity.22 In addition, the correlations among the mean-centered independent variables range from .575 to .707, as shown in Table 5, further indicating no presence of multicollinearity. Because the independent variables in the model were mean centered, main effects in the model should be inter- preted differently from typical regression analysis results. With the mean-centered TABLE 2 Descriptive Statistics of User Satisfaction Measures Mean User Characteristic Variables Group Frequency Satisfied with the overall quality of service provided Satisfied with library support for my needs Satisfied with the way I am treated Gender 100.0% 6.48 6.23 6.76 Female 0 51.5% 6.52 6.29 6.89 Male 1 48.5% 6.43 6.17 6.63 Academic Group 100.0% 6.48 6.23 6.76 Undergraduate 0 12.8% 6.72 6.47 6.88 Graduate 0 21.3% 6.36 5.92 6.65 Faculty 1 47.4% 6.40 6.24 6.71 Library staff 1 9.3% 6.61 6.18 6.56 Staff 1 9.2% 6.64 6.68 7.34 Library Resources Usage 99.3% 6.48 6.23 6.76 Daily 1 16.2% 6.44 5.91 6.46 Weekly 1 31.1% 6.49 6.29 6.85 Monthly 0 29.3% 6.46 6.20 6.74 Quarterly 0 20.2% 6.49 6.41 6.84 Never 0 2.5% 6.33 6.27 7.00 Electronic Resources Usage 99.3% 6.48 6.23 6.76 Daily 1 31.0% 6.43 6.15 6.77 Weekly 1 35.7% 6.34 6.07 6.61 Monthly 0 17.0% 6.67 6.56 7.13 Quarterly 0 9.8% 6.66 6.32 6.67 Never 0 5.7% 6.47 6.43 6.66 http:multicollinearity.22 http:Turrisi.21 Relative Influence of the LibQUAL+™ Dimensions on Satisfaction 255 interaction effects model used in this study, the coefficient of an independent variable X1 on a de- pendent variable Y is interpreted as the regression of Y on X1 when all other independent variables in the regression model are at their mean value.2 3 In other words, main effects can be interpreted as the weighted average effect across all observed values of the other predictors.24 Regression Analysis Table 3a shows mean-centered regression analysis results for the three dependent variables without an interaction term. As can be seen in table 3a, the dimensions in the model provide for an R2 of .535, .506, and .420 for the three dependent measures, “Satisfied with the overall quality of service provided,” “Satisfied with the way I am treated,” and “Satisfied with the library support for my needs,” respectively. The F statistics also show that all of the regression models presented are significant at the .000 level. Hypothesis 1 deals with the main effects of the four dimen- sions of LibQUAL+™ on the three dependent satisfaction measures. Consistent with the study authors’ expectations, the regression analy- sis results in table 3a show that the AI, AS, LP, and PC dimensions influence each dependent variable differently. The AI dimension is positively related to “Satisfied with the overall quality of service” and “Satisfied with library support for my needs,” but not statistically significantly related to “Satisfied with the way I am treated.” The AS dimension is positively related to all three dependent variables. The LP dimension is related only to “Satisfied with the overall quality of service.” The PC dimension is TA B L E 3 A R eg re ss io n A na ly si s R es ul ts Sa ti sfi ed w it h th e ov er al l q ua lit y of se rv ic e pr ov id ed Sa ti sfi ed w it h th e w ay I a m tr ea te d Sa ti sfi ed w it h lib ra ry s up po rt fo r m y ne ed s B St d E rr or St d B t b St d E rr or St d B t b St d E rr or St d B T M ai n E ff ec ts A I: A cc es s to In fo rm at io n .1 55 .0 56 .1 18 2. 75 ** * ns ns ns ns .3 12 .0 75 .1 96 4. 15 ** * A S: A ff ec t o f S er vi ce .5 49 .0 52 .4 81 10 .5 9* ** .9 62 .4 44 .7 65 21 .9 4 ** * .5 13 .0 69 .3 70 7. 41 ** * L P: L ib ra ry a s a Pl ac e -.0 81 .0 38 -.0 77 -2 .1 4* * ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns PC : P er so na l C on tr ol .3 05 .0 55 .2 49 5. 50 ** * -.1 18 .0 40 -.1 02 -2 .9 3* ** .2 21 .0 73 .1 48 3. 01 ** * F St at is tic 17 4. 09 6 31 0. 96 3 14 6. 51 7 Si gn ifi ca nc e .0 00 .0 00 .0 00 R 2 .5 35 .5 06 .4 20 * p< .1 0, * * p< .0 5, * ** p <. 01 , n s = no t s ig ni fic an t 256 College & Research Libraries May 2005 TA B L E 3 B M od er at ed R eg re ss io n A na ly si s w it h G en de r Sa ti sfi ed w it h th e ov er al l q ua lit y of se rv ic e pr ov id ed Sa ti sfi ed w it h th e w ay I a m tr ea te d Sa ti sfi ed w it h lib ra ry s up po rt fo r m y ne ed s b St an da rd E rr or St an da rd B t b St an da rd E rr or St an da rd B t b St an da rd E rr or St an da rd B T M ai n E ff ec ts A I: A cc es s to In fo rm at io n .1 45 .0 55 .1 11 2. 61 9* ** .1 90 .0 78 .1 31 2. 44 5* * .4 94 .0 76 .3 09 6. 49 0* ** A S: A ff ec t o f S er vi ce .4 81 .0 53 .4 21 8. 99 2* ** .8 22 .0 69 .6 54 11 .8 59 ** * .5 42 .0 64 .3 91 8. 42 7* ** L P: L ib ra ry a s a Pl ac e ns ns ns ns -.1 36 .0 42 -.1 18 -3 .2 67 ** * ns ns ns ns PC : P er so na l C on tr ol .3 08 .0 55 .2 52 5. 61 5* ** ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns In te ra ct io n E ff ec ts A I x G en de r ns ns ns ns -.2 59 .1 00 -.4 91 -2 .5 87 ** * -.3 13 .0 64 -.5 37 -3 .2 45 ** * A S x G en de r .1 48 .0 49 .3 16 3. 00 0* ** .2 32 .0 98 .4 49 2. 35 8* * ns ns ns ns L P x G en de r -.1 55 .0 53 -.3 05 -2 .9 15 ** * ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns PC x G en de r ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns .3 07 .0 93 .5 43 3. 29 1* ** F St at is tic 14 0. 93 8 12 7. 68 0 11 0. 47 4 Si gn ifi ca nc e .0 00 .0 00 .0 00 R 2 .5 38 .5 14 .4 22 * p< .1 0, * * p< .0 5, * ** p <. 01 , n s = no t s ig ni fic an t Relative Influence of the LibQUAL+™ Dimensions on Satisfaction 257 TA B L E 3 C M od er at ed R eg re ss io n A na ly si s w it h A ca de m ic G ro up Sa tis fie d w ith th e ov er al l q ua lit y of se rv ic e pr ov id ed Sa tis fie d w ith th e w ay I am tr ea te d Sa tis fie d w ith li br ar y su pp or t f or m y ne ed s b St an da rd E rr or St an da rd B t b St an da rd E rr or St an da rd B t b St an da rd E rr or St an da rd B T M ai n E ff ec ts A I: A cc es s to In fo rm at io n .1 55 05 6 .1 18 2. 75 ** * ns ns ns ns .2 94 .0 76 .1 84 3. 89 2* ** A S: A ff ec t o f S er vi ce .5 49 .0 52 .4 81 10 .5 9* ** .9 62 .4 44 .7 65 21 .9 4 ** * .5 14 .0 69 .3 70 7. 44 0* ** L P: L ib ra ry a s a Pl ac e .0 38 -.0 77 -2 .1 4* * ns ns ns -2 .9 3* ** ns ns ns ns PC : P er so na l C on tr ol .3 05 .0 55 .2 49 5. 50 ** * -.1 18 .0 40 -.1 02 ns .2 16 .0 73 .1 45 2. 94 9* ** In te ra ct io n E ff ec ts A I x A ca de m ic G ro up ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns .0 36 .0 19 .0 61 1. 92 0* A S x A ca de m ic G ro up ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns L P x A ca de m ic G ro up ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns PC x A ca de m ic G ro up ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns F St at is tic 17 4. 09 6 31 0. 96 3 11 1. 29 6 Si gn ifi ca nc e .0 00 .0 00 .0 00 R 2 .5 35 .5 06 .4 24 * p< .1 0, * * p< .0 5, * ** p <. 01 , n s = no t s ig ni fic an t 258 College & Research Libraries May 2005 TA B L E 3 D M od er at ed R eg re ss io n A na ly si s w it h L ib ra ry U sa ge Sa ti sfi ed w it h th e ov er al l q ua lit y of se rv ic e pr ov id ed Sa ti sfi ed w it h th e w ay I a m tr ea te d Sa ti sfi ed w it h lib ra ry s up po rt fo r m y ne ed s b St an da rd E rr or St an da rd B t b St an da rd E rr or St an da rd B t b St an da rd E rr or St an da rd B T M ai n E ff ec ts A I: A cc es s to In fo rm at io n .2 41 .0 70 .1 83 3. 42 2* ** ns ns ns ns .3 12 .0 75 .1 96 4. 15 ** * A S: A ff ec t o f S er vi ce .5 45 .0 52 .4 78 10 .4 89 ** * 1. 00 5 .0 48 .8 00 20 .9 29 ** * .5 13 .0 69 .3 70 7. 41 ** * L P: L ib ra ry a s a Pl ac e -.0 78 .0 38 -.0 75 -2 .0 69 ** -.1 40 .0 41 -.1 22 -3 .3 74 ** * ns ns ns ns PC : P er so na l C on tr ol .2 19 .0 68 .1 79 3. 20 9* ** ns ns ns ns .2 21 .0 73 .1 48 3. 01 ** * In te ra ct io n E ff ec ts A I x L ib ra ry U sa ge -.1 89 .0 93 -.3 96 -2 .0 47 * ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns A S x L ib ra ry U sa ge ns ns ns ns -.1 88 .0 82 -.3 66 -2 .2 86 ** ns ns ns ns L P x L ib ra ry U sa ge ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns PC x L ib ra ry U sa ge .1 93 .0 90 .4 15 2. 14 7* * .1 82 .0 81 .3 55 2. 23 9* * ns ns ns ns F St at is tic 11 6. 76 8 15 6. 49 0 14 6. 51 7 Si gn ifi ca nc e .0 00 .0 00 .0 00 R 2 .5 39 .5 10 .4 20 * p< .1 0, * * p< .0 5, * ** p <. 01 , n s = no t s ig ni fic an t Relative Influence of the LibQUAL+™ Dimensions on Satisfaction 259 TA B L E 3 E M od er at ed R eg re ss io n A na ly si s w it h E le ct ro ni c U sa ge Sa ti sfi ed w it h th e ov er al l q ua lit y of se rv ic e pr ov id ed Sa ti sfi ed w it h th e w ay I a m tr ea te d Sa ti sfi ed w it h lib ra ry s up po rt fo r m y ne ed s b St an da rd E rr or St an da rd B t b St an da rd E rr or St an da rd B t b St an da rd E rr or St an da rd B T M ai n E ff ec ts A I: A cc es s to In fo rm at io n .1 59 .0 56 .1 21 2. 83 7* * ns ns ns ns .3 12 .0 75 .1 96 4. 15 ** * A S: A ff ec t o f S er vi ce .4 77 .0 55 .4 18 8. 66 4* ** .9 62 .4 44 .7 65 21 .9 4 ** * .5 13 .0 69 .3 70 7. 41 ** * L P: L ib ra ry a s a Pl ac e ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns PC : P er so na l C on tr ol .3 10 .0 55 .2 53 5. 62 4* ** -.1 18 .0 40 -.1 02 -2 .9 3* ** .2 21 .0 73 .1 48 3. 01 ** * In te ra ct io n E ff ec ts A I x E le ct ro ni c U sa ge ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns A S x E le ct ro ni c U sa ge .1 15 .0 43 .2 35 2. 66 3* ** ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns L P x E le ct ro ni c U sa ge -.1 39 .0 46 -.2 67 -3 .0 46 ** * ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns PC x E le ct ro ni c U sa ge ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns F St at is tic 14 0. 59 9 31 0. 96 3 14 6. 51 7 Si gn ifi ca nc e .0 00 .0 00 .0 00 R 2 .5 40 .5 06 .4 20 * p< .1 0, * * p< .0 5, * ** p <. 01 , n s = no t s ig ni fic an t 260 College & Research Libraries May 2005 related positively to “Satisfied with the overall quality of service” and “Satisfied with library support for my needs,” but is negatively related to “Satisfied with the way I am treated.” These results provide partial support for the first hypothesis. Hypotheses 2 through 5 concern the interaction effects of the four user charac- teristics on the relationship between the four LibQUAL+™ dimensions and the dependent measures. It is hypothesized that the relationship between the four dimensions and the dependent measures will vary depending on the level of user characteristic variables. When analyzed using one of the user characteristic groups, each of the interaction effects of the LibQUAL+™ dimensions is significant for at least one of the dependent variables. For the “Satisfied with the overall quality of service provided” dependent variable, six interaction effects (AI x Library Usage, AS x Electronic Usage, AS x Gender, LP x Electronic Usage, LP x Gender, PC x Library Usage) were significant at least at the .10 level. For the “Satisfied with the way I am treated” variable, four interac- tion effects (AI x Gender, AS x Gender, AS x Library Usage, PC x Library Usage) were significant at least at the .10 level. For the “Satisfied with library support for my needs” variable, three interaction effects (AI x Gender, AI x Academic Group, PC x Gender) were significant at least at the .10 TABLE 4 Hypotheses Summary Hypotheses A. Satisfied with the overall quality of service provided B: Satisfied with the way I am treated C: Satisfied with the library support for my needs H1: Dimensions are positively related AI Supported N.S. Supported AS Supported Supported Supported LP Supported N.S. N.S. PC Supported Supported Supported H2: Interaction effects between dimensions & gender AI N.S. Supported Supported AS Supported Supported N.S. LP Supported N.S. N.S. PC N.S. N.S. Supported H3: Interaction effects between dimensions & academic group AI N.S. N.S. Supported AS N.S. N.S. N.S. LP N.S. N.S. N.S. PC N.S. N.S. N.S. H4: Interaction effects between dimensions & library use AI Supported N.S. N.S. AS N.S. Supported N.S. LP N.S. N.S. N.S. PC Supported Supported N.S. H5: Interaction effects between dimensions & electronic use AI N.S. N.S. N.S. AS Supported N.S. N.S. LP Supported N.S. N.S. PC N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. = Not supported Relative Influence of the LibQUAL+™ Dimensions on Satisfaction 261 TA B L E 5 C or re la ti on M at ri x Sa ti sfi ed w it h th e w ay I a m tr ea te d Sa ti sfi ed w it h lib ra ry s up po rt fo r m y ne ed s O ve ra ll qu al it y of th e se rv ic e pr ov id ed A cc es s to In fo rm at io n A ff ec t o f Se rv ic e L ib ra ry as a P la ce P er so na l C on tr ol Sa tis fie d w ith th e w ay I am tr ea te d 1. 00 0 Sa tis fie d w ith li br ar y su pp or t f or m y ne ed s .6 84 1. 00 0 O ve ra ll qu al ity o f t he s er vi ce p ro vi de d .6 78 .7 72 1. 00 0 A cc es s to In fo rm at io n .5 04 .5 60 .5 88 1. 00 0 A ff ec t o f S er vi ce .7 06 .6 17 .7 03 .7 07 1. 00 0 L ib ra ry a s a Pl ac e .3 38 .3 90 .4 13 .5 67 .5 75 1. 00 0 Pe rs on al C on tr ol .5 28 .5 57 .6 40 .6 98 .7 37 .5 90 1. 00 0 Si g at .0 00 level. Table 4 provides a summary. The interaction effect for gender is significant for all three dependent vari- ables, with six of the twelve interac- tions significant. The interaction effect for academic group is not significant for any of the interaction effects. The interaction effect for library resource usage is significant for four of the twelve interaction equations, whereas the interaction effect for electronic re- source usage is significant for only two of the twelve interaction equations. Figure 1 displays the thirteen inter- action effects by the dimension that is affected. The AI dimension details a negative interaction effect for three of the four significant interaction equa- tions, indicating that the greater the access to information, the lower the satisfaction ratings. The AS dimension details a positive interaction effect for three of the four significant interac- tion equations, indicating the greater the user perception of helpful library staff, the greater the overall satisfaction ratings. The LP dimension details a negative interaction effect for two of the interaction equations, indicating that the greater the rating of the library as a quiet, reflective location, the lower the overall satisfaction ratings. The PC dimension has a positive interaction for three of the interaction equations, indicating that the greater the percep- tions of personal control over obtain- ing information, the higher the overall satisfaction ratings. The results from the regression analysis lend support for the interac- tion hypotheses. With half of the inter- action equations significant for gender, it is argued that hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c are supported. The academic group dimension has only one significant interaction for “need.” Thus, the argu- ment is that hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c are not supported. The library resource usage dimension has two significant interactions for “satisfied overall” and two significant interactions for 262 College & Research Libraries May 2005 FIGURE 1 Subgroup Interaction Effects Satisfied with the overall quality of service provided Satisfied with the way I am treated Access to Information Access to Information S a tis fie d O v er al l Infrequent Frequent Library Usage Access to Information S a tis fie d w ith T re a tm en t Female Male Gender Affect of Service Affect of Service S a tis fie d O v er al l Male Female Gender Affect of Service S a tis fie d O v er al l Frequent Infrequent Electronic Usage Affect of Service S a tis fie d w ith T re a tm en t Male Female Gender Affect of Service S a tis fie d w ith T re a tm en t Frequent Infrequent Library Usage Library as a Place Library as a Place S a tis fie d O v er al l Male Female Gender Library as a Place S a tis fie d O v er al l Infrequent Frequent Electronic Usage Personal Control Personal Control S a tis fie d O v er al l Frequent Infrequent Library Usage Personal Control S a tis fie d w ith T re a tm en t Frequent Infrequent Library Usage Relative Influence of the LibQUAL+™ Dimensions on Satisfaction 263 FIGURE 1 Subgroup Interaction Effects Satisfied with library support for my needs Access to Information Access to Information S a tis fie d w ith N e e ds Female Male Gender Access to Information S a tis fie d w ith N e e ds Faculty Students Academic Group Affect of Service Library as a Place Personal Control Personal Control S a tis fie d w ith N e e ds Male Female Gender “satisfied with treatment.” Thus, the ar- gument is that hypotheses 4a and 4b are supported and Hypothesis 4c is not. The electronic resource usage dimension has two significant interactions for “satisfied overall,” lending support to hypothesis 5a and leading to the statement that hypoth- eses 5b and 5c are not supported. Conclusion/Discussion The regression equation utilizing the main effects of access to information (AI), affect of service (AS), library as a Place (LP), and personal control (PC) was significant (p<.01) for all three dependent variables. The dependent variable of “Satisfied with the overall quality of service” utilized all four dimensions with an R2 of .535. This indicates that utilizing these four dimensions to predict satisfac- tion can explain large amounts of variance in overall satisfaction. The coefficient size is noteworthy. The AS dimension has coefficients of .481, .765, and .370 for the satisfied overall, satisfied with treatment, and satisfied with support for needs dependent variables. The AS dimension is the dominant indica- tor for each equation. This result highlights the importance that the people working for the library operation have on user satisfaction with the service delivered by the academic library. The library as a place (LP) dimension of this equation had a negative coefficient; however, the coefficient values were very small. Although the LP dimension had a small negative coefficient, each time it was a significant contributor to an equation. These results are not unreasonable considering the significant interaction effects and coefficient size. Upon examina- tion of the survey questions that comprise the LP dimension, it is apparent that they focus on a quiet, reflective physical space for solitude and study while the stated mission of the library is to provide an open gathering space for groups of stu- dents to meet. Hence, it can be theorized that the need for group and commu- nity study places is not uniform among various academic groups and disciplines. Further, the demands of the workplace in today’s environment call for teamwork and cooperation. The academic commu- nity has responded to this requirement by adding team projects and exercises to the courses to prepare students to func- tion effectively in this environment. This shi in focus is highlighted in the use of the library as a group discussion or group meeting location. To reflect this new shi for the LP questions, the 2003 run of the 264 College & Research Libraries May 2005 LibQUAL+™ survey was modified ad- justing to the issues raised in this study. The study finding is consistent with the 2003 survey results, showing the lowest minimum mean aggregate score for the question of “Community space for group learning and group study.” Further, with the advent of electronic access and the trend toward Internet use, the required reflective nature for research and study as well as required reading can take place more conveniently in the office or at home. With the shifting usage pat- tern, perhaps this dimension should be examined and the questions altered to reflect the team-oriented mission of the academic library. For the dimensions of affect of service (AS) and personal control (PC), those participants who identified themselves as “frequent” electronic or library users reported higher mean overall satisfaction ratings as compared to those identified as infrequent electronic users or infrequent li- brary users. This result leads to the conclu- sion that the greater the satisfaction with the control over acquiring information and the more helpful the library personnel, the greater the user satisfaction. For the access to information (AI) and library as a place (LP) dimensions, those participants who identified themselves as “frequent” electronic or library users reported lower overall satisfaction ratings for increased dimension ratings. This result leads to the conclusion that the frequent users may be self-sufficient or frustrated with the level of support provided. Overall, the results of this study lend support to the identified relationships reported in the literature. A more detailed analysis is argued for increasing our understanding of interaction effects of the user characteristics. Future research should further develop theoretical models and additional measures of library user satisfaction to accurately capture and assess these main interaction effects of the user characteristics and library user satisfaction. The library management team can use the results of this study to alter resource al- location expenditures in order to improve user satisfaction. The analysis has shown that a significant component of overall satisfaction is based on the elements that contribute to the affect of service dimen- sion. Figure 1 graphically illustrates that across all groups of the gender, electronic usage, and library usage characteristics, an increase in AS should result in an increase in overall satisfaction. As such, library personnel skill development programs and communication seminars should yield significant improvement in the user’s overall satisfaction of the library. Notes 1. Valarie A. Ziethaml, A. Parasuraman, and Leonard L. Berry, Delivering Quality Service: Bal- ancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations (New York: The Free Press: A Division of Macmillan, Inc., 1990). 2. Colleen Cook, Fred Heath, Bruce Thompson, and Russel Thompson, “LibQUAL+: Service Quality Assessment in Research Libraries,” IFLA Journal 27 (2001): 265–68. 3. Danuta A. Nitecki and Peter Hernon, “Measuring Service Quality at Yale University’s Libraries,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 26 (July 2000): 259–73. 4. Ibid. 5. Colleen Cook and Bruce Thompson, “Psychometric Properties of Scores from the Web- based LibQUAL+ Study of Perceptions of Library Service Quality,” Library Trends 49 (spring 2001): 585–604. 6. Ibid. 7. Patience L. Simmonds and Syed Saad Andaleeb, “Usage of Academic Libraries: The Role of Service Quality, Resources, and User Characteristics,” Library Trends 49 (spring 2001): 626–34. 8. Steve Hiller, “Assessing User Needs, Satisfaction, and Library Performance at the University of Washington Libraries,” Library Trends 49 (spring 2001): 605–25. 9. Eric C. Shoaf, “Using a Professional Moderator in Library Focus Group Research,” College & Research Libraries (Mar. 2003): 124–32. Relative Influence of the LibQUAL+™ Dimensions on Satisfaction 265 10. Hiller, “Assessing User Needs, Satisfaction, and Library Performance,” 1996. 11. Pew Internet and American Life Project, “The Internet Goes to College: How Students Are Living in the Future with Today’s Technology” 15 (Sept. 2002). Available online at h p://www. pewinternet.org. 12. Kimberly B. Kelley and Gloria J. Orr, “Trends in Distant Student Use of Electronic Resources: A Survey,” College & Research Libraries 64 (May 2003): 176–91. 13. Hiller, “Assessing User Needs, Satisfaction, and Library Performance,” 1996. 14. ARL Supplementary Statistics: 1999–2000. Available online at h p://www.arl.org/stats/ arlstat/#sup. 15. Anne Martensen and Lars Gronholdt, “Improving Library Users’ Perceived Quality, Satis- faction and Loyalty: An Integrated Measurement and Management System,” Journal of Academic Librarianship (May 2003): 140–47. 16. Cook and Thompson, “Psychometric Properties of Scores from the LibQUAL+ Study,” 2001. 17. Susan Edwards and Mairead Browne, “Quality in Information Services: Do Users and Librarians Differ in Expectations?” Library and Information Science Research 17 (1995): 163–82. 18. Bruce Thompson, Colleen Cook, and Russel L. Thompson, “Reliability and Structures of LibQUAL+™ Scores: Measuring Perceived Library Service Quality,” Libraries and the Academy 2 (2002): 3–12. 19. Jum C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1978). 20. Leona S. Aiken and Stephen G. West, Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1991). 21. James Jaccard, K. Wan Choi, and Robert Turrisi, “The Detection and Interpretation of In- teraction Effects between Continuous Variables in Multiple Regression,” Multivariate Behavioral Research 25 (1990): 467–78. 22. Raymond H. Myers, Classical and Modern Regression with Applications (Boston: Duxberry Pr., 1986). 23. Aiken and West, Multiple Regression. 24. Ibid. http:pewinternet.org