Purpose:
Library researchers are interested in understanding how their library services are keeping up with the rapid advances in technology and newer methods of obtaining information. Accordingly, the commonly used LibQUAL+® instrument, which is used to measure library service quality, may need to be updated to reflect these developments. The purpose of this paper is to study the longitudinal invariance of LibQUAL+® for data obtained from all libraries that use LibQUAL+® since 2013. This study is a more thorough and large-scale replication of a study that considered invariance over a period of three years at the library of the University of North Texas. The results of our study will inform how consistent the dimensions of affect of service, information control, and library as a place are over time.
Design, methodology or approach:
The study will analyze data from 1,327 number of libraries and 2.3 million participants across 29 countries. After screening the data for univariate and multivariate normality, a series of structural equation models will be fit to the data. These will include: (a) a confirmatory factor analysis model based on the three factor structure established in the literature, (b) a multitrait multimethod model (MTMM) with time as the method factors and the three factor structure as the trait factors, and (c) longitudinal invariance models.
Findings:
All models will be fit in LISREL software. Model fit will be evaluated using chi-squared values and fit indices such as comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR).
Research or practical limitations or implications:
MTMM is a novel use of testing the validity of LibQUAL+® across time because it can partial out method effects (i.e. methods (time) of data collection). This adds to evaluating validity of the instrument, which cannot be done in a cross-sectional study. Longitudinal invariance model will inform us how (if at all) these factors have changed over time.
Conclusions:
We expect factor structure of the LibQUAL+ model to be replicated across time. However, the loadings may differ which would indicate that the users’ perceptions of affect of service, information control, and library as a place have changed across time. This will indicate directions for future research and extension of LibQUAL+®.
Originality and value:
Very few researchers have access to complete LibQUAL+ data across institutions and time. We use the latest methodological developments in instrument validation to examine the invariance of LibQUAL+® across time. To the best of our knowledge, no study in library science has examined how to partial out method effects. This can inform researchers if their method of data collection has an impact on the responses. LibQUAL+® has benefitted tremendously by the interest of highly skilled academic researchers in the past and continues to be critically analyzed through interdisciplinary collaborations between library administrators and researchers with expertise in both libraries and methods.
References:
Cook, C., Heath, F. and Thompson, B. (2003). LibQUAL+™ from the UK Perspective, 5th Northumbria International Conference Proceedings, Durham, UK, July 2003.
Cook, C. and Thompson, B. (2001). Psychometric Properties of Scores from the Web-based LibQUAL+™ Study of Perceptions of Library Service Quality, Library Trends, 49, 585-604.
Fagan, J. (2014). The dimensions of library service quality: A confirmatory factor analysis of the LibQUAL+ model, Library & Information Science Research, 36(1), 36-48.
Kieftenbeld, V. and Natesan, P. (2013). Examining the measurement and structural invariance of LibQUAL+® across user groups, Library & Information Science Research, 35(2), 143-150.
Kyrillidou, M., Olshen, T., Heath, F., Bonnelly, C. and Côte, J. (2003). Cross-Cultural Implementation of LibQUAL+™: the French Language Experience, 5th Northumbria International Conference Proceedings, Durham, UK, July 2003, 193-99.
Lane, F., Anderson, B., Ponce, H. and Natesan, P. (2012). Factorial Invariance of LibQUAL+ as a Measure of Library Service Quality Over Time, Library & Information Science Research, 34(1), 22-30.
Natesan, P. and Aerts, X. (2016). Can library users distinguish between minimum, perceived, and desired levels of service quality? Validating LibQUAL+ using multitrait multimethod analysis, Library & Information Science Research, 38(1), 30-38.
Nitecki, D.A. (1996). Changing the Concept and Measure of Service Quality in Academic Libraries, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 22, 181-90.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. and Zeithaml, V. (1991). Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale, Journal of Retailing, 67, 420-50.
Rehman, S.U., Kyrillidou, M. and Hameed, I. (2014). Reliability and Validity of a Modified LibQUAL+ Survey in Pakistan: an Urdu Language Experience, Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 19(2), 83-102.
Thompson, B., Cook, C. and Kyrillidou, M. (2006). How Can You Evaluate the Integrity of Your Library Assessment Data: Intercontinental LibQUAL+® Analysis Used as Concrete Heuristic Examples, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, and Practical Assessment, Charlottesville, VA, August 4-6, 2006.
Yeager, A. and Kyrillidou, M. (2015). Design Thinking and LibQUAL+: The landscape of changing user needs and expectations of faculty and undergraduate students in ARL libraries – Trends 2003-2014, Poster, Canadian Library Assessment Workshop, Toronto, Canada, October 16-18, 2013, and Southeastern Library Assessment Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, November 16-17, 2015.
kyrillidou-natesan-cook-paper-libqual_invariance.pdf 