 |
Spring 2002
|
|
|
| |
Many campus readers may
recall completing a questionnaire last spring about library resources and
services. All faculty and staff (3400) and a random sample of 2500
students were surveyed. Of these, nearly 1300 completed and returned the
survey forms; the response rate was 22% for faculty/staff and 23% for
students. This survey of “Customer Satisfaction” was part of a
California State University system-wide assessment effort. In addition to
CSUF, 11 other campus libraries participated: Bakersfield, Chico,
Dominguez Hills, Fresno, Hayward, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Pomona, San
Bernardino, San Diego, and Sonoma..
The survey results have now been tabulated, providing comparative data as
well as results and comments specific to individual campuses. As part of
the CSU Libraries Strategic Plan, it is expected that such surveys will be
repeated at intervals, involving a number of campuses each time.
Some highlights of the findings for Pollak Library include:
- Rated
at or above the systemwide mean on 25 of 27 total factors
- Rated
the highest of all participating libraries on:
- Electronic
resources
- Instructional
programs
- Interlibrary
loan/document delivery services
- Friday hours
- Rated
2nd highest of all participating libraries on:
- Courtesy of
librarians at reference desk
- Media and “other”
materials
- Saturday hours
- Hours open prior
to final exams
Among respondents, 79%
(1013) had used Pollak Library in the last 12 months; 21% (263) had not.
Reasons, with numbers of respondents selecting each choice, for not using
the Library included:
- Another library is
more convenient (58)
- Another library has
more materials which I need (27)
- Have not needed
library collections/services (187)
- Find the campus
library too large and complex (29)
The mean number of
visits to the Library by respondents within the 12-month period was 34.6.
When visiting the Library, 834 persons used books, journals, or media
resources; 787 consulted reference materials/databases, 551 used study
areas, and 462 consulted a reference librarian. The heaviest users of the
Library were from the Colleges of Humanities & Social Sciences,
Business & Economics, and Human Development & Community Service.
Specific percentages for user satisfaction (includes those reporting to be
“satisfied/very satisfied”) with Pollak Library are listed below for
all factors surveyed:
| Usefulness
of materials: |
|
|
|
Books |
72% |
|
Journals |
70% |
|
Electronic Resources |
86% |
|
Media and Other |
72% |
| Instructional
Program Quality |
|
74% |
| Ability
to Find Needed Items |
|
72% |
| Remote
Electronic Access |
|
72% |
| Interlibrary
Loan/Doc Delivery |
|
76% |
| Building
Environment: |
|
|
|
Safety |
89% |
|
Cleanliness |
89% |
|
Quiet |
77% |
|
Climate |
81% |
|
Lighting |
87% |
|
Elevators |
78% |
| Librarian
Expertise |
|
85% |
| Staff
Expertise |
|
73% |
| Librarian
Courtesy |
|
84% |
| Staff
Courtesy |
|
73% |
| Hours: |
|
|
|
Mon - Thu Morning |
89% |
|
Mon - Thu Evening |
84% |
|
Fri |
74% |
|
Sat |
67% |
|
Sun |
63% |
|
Open prior to finals |
79% |
| Library
equipment: |
|
|
| Working
condition |
|
72% |
| Adequate
number |
|
58% |
| Up-to-date |
|
68% |
|
The above data are aggregated
but, of course, there were some differences in the ratings provided by faculty,
staff, and students. The differences (as well as commonalities) were also
revealed in the open-ended written comments made by approximately 1000
respondents. In general, faculty and staff gave positive ratings to the Library’s
instruction programs, electronic resources, interlibrary loan services,
information technology, and the new north building. They suggested improvement
in the print collections of books and journals, adequacy of staff,
appearance/functionality of south wing facilities, building cleanliness, and
noise levels. Students also gave high marks to the electronic resources,
information technology, comfortable/functional study facilities, and helpful
staff. However, their “wish list” for improvements included longer hours,
more computers, cheaper or free photocopying and printing, additional study
spaces, and better climate control.
We are pleased to report that
some of the specific concerns voiced in this survey have already been addressed
or are currently being corrected. These include difficulties with remote access
to electronic resources via the proxy server (a service begun just prior to the
survey) and inadequate building signage. In other cases, users recommended the
addition of materials and services already provided by Pollak Library. These
comments indicate we must continue and perhaps enhance our ongoing efforts to
communicate to the University community the full range of programs and
collections available. Concerns voiced by respondents that are related to the
adequacy of staffing, materials, and facilities reinforce our own recognition of
budgetary limitations. However, we continue to seek creative means to improve
our services, fiscal restraints notwithstanding.
Overall, we found the survey
results to be both informative and insightful. We expect to “mine” these
data and opinions for some time to come. And we thank all of you who
participated in this survey process. Your responses are definitely helping us
plan and develop our collections and services more effectively to meet campus
needs.
Pat Bril,
Electronic Collections Librarian
|
