Exploring the Relationship between Patron Type, Carnegie Classification, and Satisfaction with Library Services: An Analysis of LibQUAL+® Results
type: CreativeWork
description: The purpose of this study was to explore how faculty and students responded to the Information Control section of the LibQUAL+® survey at two libraries with different Carnegie Classifications. As one of the institutions being studied was considering a shift from a research institution to one more focused on teaching and learning, this study used two schools with different Carnegie Classifications, one with a RU_H and the other with a Master’s M classification, to determine if faculty and students had different minimum, perceived, and desired scores related to Information Control. A three way between-within subjects ANOVA was used as a method of analysis, with two between-subjects variables and one within-subjects variable. The first between-subjects variable was patron type, and consisted of undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty members. The second between-within subjects variable was Carnegie Classification and consisted of RU_H or Master’s M classification. The within-subjects variable has three levels that serve as three dependent variables. Each dependent variable is a composite or the mean score for the combined eight questions that make up the Information Control component of LibQUAL+®. The Information Control component deals with collections and the access provided to those collections. Because each question in the survey has a corresponding 9 point Likert scale for minimum, perceived, and desired service quality, three separate means were created for each respondent. The results of the analysis indicate that Carnegie Classification has no significant effect on how students and faculty respond to minimum, perceived, and desired levels of service with regard to Information Control. There were significant differences with regard to patron level responses.
abstract: The purpose of this study was to explore how faculty and students responded to the Information Control section of the LibQUAL+® survey at two libraries with different Carnegie Classifications. As one of the institutions being studied was considering a shift from a research institution to one more focused on teaching and learning, this study used two schools with different Carnegie Classifications, one with a RU_H and the other with a Master’s M classification, to determine if faculty and students had different minimum, perceived, and desired scores related to Information Control. A three way between-within subjects ANOVA was used as a method of analysis, with two between-subjects variables and one within-subjects variable. The first between-subjects variable was patron type, and consisted of undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty members. The second between-within subjects variable was Carnegie Classification and consisted of RU_H or Master’s M classification. The within-subjects variable has three levels that serve as three dependent variables. Each dependent variable is a composite or the mean score for the combined eight questions that make up the Information Control component of LibQUAL+®. The Information Control component deals with collections and the access provided to those collections. Because each question in the survey has a corresponding 9 point Likert scale for minimum, perceived, and desired service quality, three separate means were created for each respondent. The results of the analysis indicate that Carnegie Classification has no significant effect on how students and faculty respond to minimum, perceived, and desired levels of service with regard to Information Control. There were significant differences with regard to patron level responses.
author: Guder, Christopher S.
language: English
keywords: Educational Technology, Information Science, Library Science, LibQUAL+, Carnegie Classification, Patron Type, Within-Subjects, ANOVA, Libraries
date published: 2012
date modified: 2026-07-24T03:35:52Z
provider: OhioLINK
publisher: Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations
type: WebPage
source organization: Ohio University