What could be done to improve the LibQUAL survey experience for your library? / Qu’est ce qui pourrait être fait pour amèliorer le sondage LibQUAL pour votre bibliothèque?
#	Response Date	Response Text
1.	11/6/2007 9:18:00 PM	Allow more flexibility in choosing optional questions (e.g. less than five). Change demographic label from "Sex" to "Gender"
2.	11/9/2007 5:20:00 PM	L'idée de faire une version "light" du sondage avec moins de questions serait très utile, car beaucoup de répondants se sont plaints que le questionnaire prned trop de temps à répondre.
3.	11/9/2007 8:52:00 PM	Can't think of anything.
4.	11/9/2007 8:54:00 PM	Simplicity would be beneficial, since we are a small institution whose library serves both the University and the College communities.
5.	11/9/2007 8:55:00 PM	Allow more question customization for different types of libraries. (college, chiefly under grad,research). Acknowledge multiple campus library systems in the set up, sot hat the report can be easily broken out by location.
6.	11/9/2007 8:56:00 PM	Nothing related to the consortial effort.
7.	11/9/2007 8:57:00 PM	A shorter survey. I am very interested in the libqual 'light'
8.	11/9/2007 8:58:00 PM	We would like to pursue adapting the basic libqual questions so that the context was more applicable to our particular environment (special library - law library).
9.	11/9/2007 8:59:00 PM	add more flexibility to the survey's faculty and staff categories (critical) - make the survey's disciplines more flexible, e.g. we have 2 faculties out of 4 that have social sciences and the survey disciplines are not flexible enough to cover this - have 1 (or 2 max) instead of 3 categories (Minimum, Perceived, Desired) - only include core questions, local questions, and demographic/discipline questions
10.	11/12/2007 1:45:00 PM	Our institution has both a french campus & an english campus, so we had the survey in both languages. I made a mistake of not choosing the optional consortial questions for the french survey (thinking I'd covered it by choosing in english) and so ended up having 2 results notebooks. My mistake-- but it would be great to have this glitch highlighted for those libraries that do choose both languages.
11.	11/12/2007 4:02:00 PM	Provide screen prints on the website to allow people to know ahead of time what the current survey fields will look like when they enter the survey setup phase. In a few instances the manual contained outdated information or information not applicable to a community college and despite our detailed planning some last minute adjustments had to be made to accommodate the new information we encountered when we actually reached another milestone in the survey process.
12.	11/13/2007 2:11:00 PM	We likely should run the LibQUAL light version.
13.	11/13/2007 2:12:00 PM	We need an assessment librarian or someone who has more time to work with the results. Nothing that you can deal with on your end, unfortunately :-)
14.	11/14/2007 12:45:00 PM	Nous referons le sondage lorsqu'il sera plus "lèger" soit une dizaine de question au lieu de 22.
15.	11/14/2007 6:46:00 PM	A shorter version (we could try the "light" version that is in development) To be able to sligthly customize some of the statements or see, in the long term, if LibQual would consider a version for government and special libraries. I believe the customization would be minor but it would be more accurate.
16.	11/26/2007 4:47:00 PM	Contact based on similar institutions. Not much parallel between scientific and law libraries!
17.	11/26/2007 6:13:00 PM	The Libqual Light survey is a step in the right direction. I believe the number of questions in the current survey can discourage several potential respondents. Also, several of the questions are worded in such a way that the interpretation of the results is very difficult. I think clearer, more straightforward questions would be welcome.
18.	11/26/2007 7:54:00 PM	We thought the experience was very well organized. The confusion over the Consortial Handbook of data was a small glitch and a learning experience so it did concern us at all.
19.	11/26/2007 8:46:00 PM	Better ability to manipulate the survey design for a college and not university library. For example, we were not able to remove the category "graduate" or "faculty" & 29 respondents indicated they were graduates which is not a program we support.
20.	11/26/2007 11:12:00 PM	We're very interested in seeing whether or not LibQUAL-lite will improve response rate as the current 22 core questions format is a tad long.
21.	11/26/2007 11:13:00 PM	Add some additional information to the web site, such as tips to get a better response rate (besides offering incentives), some "best practices" help (such as, is it better to have one or two people take on the LibQUAL project, or are should the project be untertaken by a committee)
22.	11/27/2007 2:23:00 PM	Courses offered for librarians on spss, advanced excel beforehand at Education institutes geared for lbirarians with no experience in statistics analysis;
23.	11/27/2007 2:54:00 PM	I think we will look at ways to get our response rate up (e.g. expand number of surveys we mail out, better prizes).
24.	11/27/2007 2:55:00 PM	Internally, we could make more of an effort to get more librarians/staff involved in promoting participation and in the work of analysis.
25.	11/27/2007 4:40:00 PM	The greatest improvement in the LibQUAL experience would come from my University's administration allowing follow-up / reminder e-mails to be sent to respondents.
26.	11/29/2007 7:38:00 PM	I would like to be able to create our own"local" questions to better target our needs for feedback from year to year.
27.	12/4/2007 2:32:00 PM	We need to publicize more widely to increase the participation rate.
28.	12/4/2007 4:36:00 PM	Simpler questionnaire and analysis beyond the radar charts
29.	12/4/2007 7:36:00 PM	If the survey is shorter more particpants may respond. A shorter, more descrpitive rating scale would be useful.
30.	12/5/2007 6:21:00 PM	post-analysis of the questions asked consortially, insitutionally so we know next time do we want to go with the same questions or try different ones.
31.	12/5/2007 9:19:00 PM	Our response rate was low (it has been low in other survey efforts). Although it would impact representativeness of the sample I wondered we would have had better response if we had emailed the survey invitation to all undergraduates. I also wondered if we would have had better response if the survey had opened in mid-February and ran through until early April if we would have had better response. In any event, I would focus on a more intensive marketing plan (i.e., more money would have to be invested in marketing). I would also want more staff involved in marketing activities.
32.	12/5/2007 11:15:00 PM	We struggled with the way various things are categorized, especially faculty and students. Neither the "College" or "University" designations suit us. Our faculty are not designated in the manner of the "university" faculty, but the student designations for "technical colleges" were terrible for us. We needed a way to customize this in a better way for our situation. Also, it was quite a difficult job to allign our programs with the LibQual programs, and then to get the headcounts needed from the College. I was glad I had someone I could consult for advice on this, but it is almost an impossible task to align these three entities.