| 1. | 11/9/2007 5:20:00 PM |
Nous trouvons tout de même important de conserver une certaine continuité dans le contenu du sondage pour pouvoir comparer les résultats d'une année à l'autre. |
| 2. | 11/9/2007 8:52:00 PM | I am assuming that 1 = highest choice (rank) |
| 3. | 11/9/2007 8:54:00 PM | I have filled out this survey assuming the lower numbers represent a lower score
and the higher numbers represent a higher score. |
| 4. | 11/9/2007 8:56:00 PM | Tough question... I'd be hesitant to jump ship on LQ when we're really only beginning to build the Canadian base, but I'd definitely be supportive of an all-Canadian initiative if there was a good reason for doing so (not sure that I can think of a good reason to duplicate the LQ effort, though). |
| 5. | 11/9/2007 8:58:00 PM | Not certain what LibQUAL lite will give us in terms of substance... |
| 6. | 11/12/2007 1:45:00 PM | assuming 3 = high preference, 1= low. |
| 7. | 11/13/2007 2:12:00 PM | CACUL has a committee working on developing a standards document for academic libraries in Canada. . .there could be some synergies there if a new committee is struck to develop a survey? |
| 8. | 11/14/2007 6:46:00 PM | Well, this reflects my comment on previous question!! Still, I would not drastically transform the survey. |
| 9. | 11/26/2007 6:13:00 PM | Although LibQual is useful to obtain a general sense of users perception of various services, it seems to us that it is very hard to derive any precise understanding about specific services or resources.
It could be interesting to devise a more focused survey that would tackle only a limited number odf issues but in a much more detailed manner. Granted, doing that as a consortium presents its own challenges. |
| 10. | 11/26/2007 7:54:00 PM |
We woudl like to build a base of data over a number of years using the 22 questions plus the same 'optional' 5. This is important to us since we have only participated once so far. After 5 or 6 surveys, a 'light' survey would be something we woudl consider. A Canadian only survey is not helpful because we work in a North American context. |
| 11. | 11/26/2007 10:42:00 PM | This is the third time that we've run LibQUAL, and in order to make comparisons over time I would want to use the same questions, even if they are not perfect. |
| 12. | 11/26/2007 11:13:00 PM | There are advantages to running LibQUAL for national and international comparisons (CARL and ARL, as well as other comparisons), but if a good Canadian survey could be developed, that may serve our needs, too. We received quite a bit of negative feedback regarding the full LibQUAL survey... |
| 13. | 11/27/2007 2:54:00 PM | I think we would want to use the existing survey so we can do comparasions with the data we have, so that is why I think we would want to use libQUAL or libQUAL light. |
| 14. | 11/27/2007 2:55:00 PM | If I'm going to ask our faculty (and students) to complete a survey, it might as well be the full 10-15 minute version rather than just a 5-minute version. I think part of the point of doing the standart international version is comparability of results--if Canadian results are unflattering vis-a-vis US results, so be it. The cost and time of developing a Canadian instrument is a waste, I think. The additional LibQUAL+ questions might be a vehicle for asking some Canada-specific questions? |
| 15. | 11/27/2007 4:40:00 PM | I would support developing a new survey. LibQUAL doesn't strike me as a straightforward, effective survey for the average Library user. I think we could do better. |
| 16. | 11/29/2007 7:38:00 PM | For consistency sake, I selected the standard LibQual+ survey. We find the LibQual+ Lite option intertesting though, perhaps for us to use in between years of running the full survey here at UVic. Not sure that it would offer enough depth to be run as a consortia though.
Developing our own survey for Canadian libraries would be useful, but alot of work and not sure that we could develop something that would suit the needs of each institution. |
| 17. | 11/30/2007 4:18:00 AM | A new Canadian survey might provide an opportunity to clarify some statements in the Canadian context. |
| 18. | 12/4/2007 4:36:00 PM | U of Waterloo Library conducted a User Satisfaction Survey in 2006 and we plan to conduct this survey every alternate year. We would be happy to share this survey with other Canadian institutions to develop a Canadian instrument. |
| 19. | 12/5/2007 11:15:00 PM |
Since we have only done one LibQual survey, a new "Canadian" instrument has some definite appeal. I would want to know more about that possibility. The "light" version of the survey also has appeal because I know the length of the survey was an issue for our respondents, but I would worry about whether this would negatively affect the robustness of our results, since we don't get overly large response rates. |