Library Assessment
Library Assessment
The Library Assessment Team has been operating since 2007, in order to evaluate the library’s services and evaluate how users perceive them. The team conducts a variety of surveys, usability tests and focus groups, and monitors the implementation of the results.
Among the areas examined: the physical environment, identification of user needs, collections, interfaces to access content, and remote services.
Among the activities performed: In-Library Use Surveys, Wayfinding, Focus Groups, Satisfaction Surveys, Usability Studies, a Non-Users’ Survey and an Organizational Climate Survey. Link to the “Library Assessment” entry in Wikipedia.
Reports
Usability Report on the Primo New User Interface
Results of the 2014 Usability Report
Library Satisfaction Survey 2014
Usability study on the library web site Feb. 2013 (report in Hebrew)
In Library Use survey Jun 2011 (in Hebrew)
Library Assessment Conference Oct 2010
Non Users Final Report May 2010 (in Hebrew)
Usability library website Jan. 2010 (in Hebrew)
Usability library website Jun. 2009 (in Hebrew)
LibQUAL+® Lite Spring 2009 survey results
Wayfinding Study Aug.-Sep. 2008 (in Hebrew)
Presentations
Library Publications
Harvard University library seeks advice from our Library Assessment Team Library Assessment Team Dec.2015 (in Heb & Eng.)
LQ – Library Satisfaction Survey Results. Dr. Lynne Porat Library Assessment Team Mar. 2010
Results of In-Library Use Survey. Dr. Lynne Porat and Michal Gershtein, Library Assessment Team,Jan. 2009
The Library Assessment Team Dr. Lynne Porat , July 2009
In-library Use” Questionnaire. Michal Gershtein and Dr. Lynne Porat, Library Assessment Team, Sep.2009
Articles about library assessment
Beck, S. G. (1996). Wayfinding in libraries. Library Hi Tech, 14(1), 27-36.
Berger, K. W., & Hines, R. W. (1994). What does the user really want? The library user survey project at Duke University. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 20(5-6), 306-309.
Brown, J. M. (2010). Informal assessment for library middle managers. Library Leadership and Management, 24(1), 18-22.
Cook, C. (2002). The maturation of assessment in academic libraries: The role of LibQUAL+. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 3(2), 40-42.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, B. (2002). Score norms for improving library service quality: A LibQUAL+tm study. Portal. Libraries and the Academy, 2(1), 13-26.
Cook, C. & Maciel, M. (2010) A Decade of Assessment at a Research-Extensive University Library Using LibQUAL+® Research Library Issues: A Bimonthly Report from ARL, CNI and SPARC, 271, 4-12.
Eaton, G. (1991). Wayfinding in the library: Book searches and route uncertainty. RQ, 30(4), 519-527.
Glitz, B. (1997). The focus group technique in library research: An introduction. Bulletin of the medical library association, 85(4), 385.
Higa-Moore, M. L., Bunnett, B., Mayo, H. G., & Olney, C. A. (2002). Use of focus groups in a library’s strategic planning process. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90(1), 86.
Hiller, S. & Porat, L. (2011). Academic library as a place: Users and uses. In S. Graham Margaret & Thornton (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Northumbria international conference on performance measurement in libraries and information services (pp. 263-273). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Northumbria University Press.
Hiller, S. (2001). Assessing user needs, satisfaction, and library performance at the University of Washington ibraries. Library Trends, 49, 4.
Hiller, S. (2002). How different are they? A comparison by academic area of library use, priorities, and information needs at the University of Washington. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 33.
Hiller, S., & Self, J. (2004). From measurement to management: Using data wisely for planning and decision-making. Library Trends, 53(1), 129-155. Horan, M. (1999).
Horan, M. (1999). What students see: Sketch maps as tools for assessing knowledge of libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25(3), 187-201.
Kyrillidou, M. (2009). Item sampling in service quality assessment surveys to improve response rates and reduce respondent burden: The “LibQUAL+® Lite” randomized control trial (rct). Unpublished PhD., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Leitao, B. J., & Verguerio, W. (2000). Using the focus group approach for evaluating customers’ opinions: The experience of a Brazilian academic library. New Library world, 101, 60-65.
Porat, L. (2016). User feedback as a management tool in academic libraries: a review. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 17(3). 214-223
Porat, L. (2013). Marketing and Assessment in Academic Libraries: A Marriage of Convenience or True Love? Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 8(2). 60-67.
Thompson, B., Cook, C., & Thompson, R. L. (2002). Reliability and structure of LibQUAL+ tm scores: Measuring perceived library service quality. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2(1), 3-12.
Thompson, B., Kyrillidou, M., & Cook, C. (2009a). Equating scores on” lite” and long library user survey forms: The LibQUAL+ lite randomized control trials. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 10(3), 212-219.
Thompson, B., Kyrillidou, M., & Cook, C. (2009b). Item sampling in service quality assessment surveys to improve response rates and reduce respondent burden: The “LibQUAL+ up/up lite” example. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 10(1), 6-16.
Thompson, B., Kyrillidou, M., & Cook, C. (2010). Does using item sampling methods in library service quality assessment compromise data integrity or zone of tolerance interpretation? A LibQUAL+ֲ® Lite study, LibraryAssessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment. Baltimore MD. Baltimore, USA
Team Members
Sorin Solomon, Library Information System Team
Dr. Yariv Shock, Reference
Michal Rubin, Digital Content and Special Collections
Liat Shalel, Technical Service
Yair Even-Zohar, Reference
Nir Zinger, Library Information System Team