Measuring Service Quality at Yale University’s
Libraries
by Danuta A. Nitecki and Peter Hernon
This article examines a new
approach to measuring service
quality, one that produces
findings useful for local
planning and decision making.
It also differentiates between
service quality and satisfaction
and points the direction for
further research.
Danuta A. Nitecki is Associate University
Librarian, Yale University Libraries, Box
208240, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-
8240 ⬍danuta.nitecki@yale.edu⬎; Peter
Hernon, Professor, Simmons College,
Graduate School of Library and Information
Science, 300 The Fenway, Boston,
Massachusetts
⬍peter.hernon@simmons.edu⬎.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 26, Number 4, pages 259 –273
F or years, researchers in library and
information science (LIS) have ex-
amined information needs, user
wants, and user perceptions about the
value of library services. They have also
looked at an elusive concept—quality—in
terms of collections (size, titles held, and
breadth of subject coverage) and the ef-
fectiveness (extent to which goals and ob-
jectives are set and met) of library ser-
vices. In recent years, LIS researchers
have drawn on marketing and other liter-
atures to focus attention on expectations
and an alternative view of quality, one
representing the user’s or customer’s per-
spective on the services used. Those re-
searchers who have examined quality
from that perspective concur with their
peers in marketing that “only customers
judge quality; all other judgments are es-
sentially irrelevant.”1 As Valarie A.
Zeithaml, A. Parasuraman, and Leonard
L. Berry emphasized, “service-quality
perceptions stem from how well a pro-
vider performs vis-à-vis customers’ ex-
pectations about how the provider should
perform.”2 As a result, the research has
tended to define service quality in terms
of meeting or exceeding customer expec-
tations,3 or, more precisely, as the differ-
ence— or gap— between customer per-
ceptions and expectations of service.
Recently, Peter Hernon and John R.
Whitman argued that it is possible to ex-
amine expectations from two coequal and
probably interrelated concepts, service
quality and satisfaction.4 Service quality
deals with those expectations that the li-
brary chooses to meet, and satisfaction is
more of an emotional and subjective re-
action to a time-limited event or the cu-
mulative experiences that a customer has
with a service provider.5
Within LIS, different approaches to
measure service quality are emerging.
One centers on the use of SERVQUAL, a
survey instrument based on the Gaps
Model of Service Quality. The model
summarizes a set of five gaps showing the
discrepancy between:
● Customers’ expectations and manage-
ment’s perceptions of these expecta-
tions (Gap 1);
● Management’s perceptions of custom-
ers’ expectations and service quality
specifications (Gap 2);
● Service quality specifications and ac-
tual service delivery (Gap 3);
● Actual service delivery and what is
communicated to customers about it
(Gap 4); and
● Customers’ expected services and per-
ceived service delivered (Gap 5).6
The first four gaps are the major con-
tributors to the service quality gap that
customers may perceive. The fifth gap is
the basis of a customer-oriented definition
of service quality; it is the discrepancy
between customers’ expectations for ex-
cellence and their perceptions of actual
service delivered. This discrepancy is the
conceptual basis for the SERVQUAL in-
strument.7 By applying the instrument,
libraries gain insights into customers’
conceptualization of what a service
should deliver and how well that service
meets idealized expectations.
Another approach, one also built
around the Gaps Model, centers around
the work of Hernon and his colleagues in
the United States and New Zealand.8
They, likewise, look at the service nature
of libraries but view service quality in the
context of library planning and decision
making. They have suggested a pool of
more than 100 candidate service attributes
that staff could review and from which
they could select a subset potentially hav-
ing the greatest relevance to their library.
July 2000 259
Thus, these researchers maintain that any
subset of attributes that staff members
select varies from institution to institution
because different libraries are unlikely to
be willing to provide the resources neces-
sary to meet or exceed exactly the same
set of expectations.
SERVQUAL
SERVQUAL, first introduced in 1988 in
marketing, consists of 22 pairs of state-
ments, the first of which measure the ex-
pectations of a service provider’s custom-
ers by asking each respondent to rate, on
a seven-point scale, how essential each
item is for an excellent service provider to
deliver. The second set of 22 identical
statements ascertains the respondent’s
perceptions of the level of service given
by the institution or organization exam-
ined. For each pair of statements, the dif-
ference between the ranked perception
and the ranked expectation is calculated;
the average of these gap scores is the
SERVQUAL overall quality score. The
instrument’s designers—Zeithaml, Para-
suraman, and Berry— claim that each set
of 22 statements encompasses five inter-
related dimensions that customers most
value when, regardless of the service pro-
vider used, they evaluate service quality:
● Tangibles (physical facilities, equip-
ment, and the appearance of person-
nel);
● Reliability (ability to perform the
promised service dependably and ac-
curately);
● Responsiveness (willingness to help
customers and provide prompt ser-
vice);
● Assurance (knowledge and courtesy of
employees and their ability to inspire
trust and confidence); and
● Empathy (caring, individualized atten-
tion the firm provides its customers).9
The SERVQUAL designers contended
that the 22 statements group, as factor
loads, onto these five dimensions and,
thus, define the dimensions. They further
assert that the average scores of the state-
ments grouped around each dimension
correspond to the dimension’s service
quality gap score. Another key part of the
instrument is a direct request of customers
to indicate the relative importance that
they attach to these dimensions by a 100-
point allocation.
Danuta A. Nitecki reported that studies
using SERVQUAL in libraries have
260 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
tended to find “reliability” as the most
important dimension and “tangibles” as
the least important one. She observed that
the instrument’s designers had a similar
finding when they studied various service
industries in the profit sector. She also
noted that there is little overlap among the
five dimensions and differences regarding
which dimensions are, indeed, important
when measured by the grouped state-
ments.10 Reviewing eight published ap-
plication studies of SERVQUAL in li-
brary settings, Nitecki observes that
none of the library settings. . . [provides ev-
idence that] the five dimension patterns pro-
posed by the SERVQUAL designers applies
to. . . [those] settings. Except for the Mary-
land study, all data agree that without con-
straint, a five factor solution can be estab-
lished, but the items do not load on the same
factors as developed by the SERVQUAL
designers. There is no repetition of associ-
ated patterns among the library studies, ex-
cept that consistently the first four statements
load together (the Tangible group) and state-
ments 18, 20 –22 (Empathy). The Maryland
study reached a four-factor solution.11
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Patience L.
Simmonds,12 as well as Emin Babakus
and Gregory W. Boller,13 questioned the
extent to which SERVQUAL captures all
five dimensions consistently. Andaleeb
and Simmonds found that a dimension,
demeanor, was an important aspect of li-
brary service and that it “is a rough com-
bination of two SERVQUAL dimensions,
empathy and assurance, and the helpful-
ness criterion normally associated with
responsiveness.”14 Colleen Cook and
Bruce Thompson surmise that
It is possible that the Demeanor factor. . .
speaks to a similar concept. . . identified in
the factor, “Affect of Service Experience,”
which is a close, but not exact amalgamation
of SERVQUAL’s responsiveness, assurance,
and empathy dimensions, and that these ele-
ments may constitute one rather than three
factors. Other studies in retailing and in
banking, motor vehicle, brokerage, electrical
appliance and life insurance services indus-
tries have yielded similar results.15
They suggested that there may be three
dimensions in libraries, tangibles, reliabil-
ity or service efficiency, and affect of
service, and that there is a need for further
research to explore the dimensions “that
may underlie quality service as a con-
struct in the research library setting.”16
Nitecki concludes the following about the
findings of past studies:
[they do] not imply that the SERVQUAL
five dimensions are irrelevant to the aca-
demic library setting. They do, however,
suggest that interpretations based on the cal-
culated dimensions should be made with
caution. Additional research in other aca-
demic libraries is needed to confirm the ap-
plicability of these five dimensions or to
identify a different model for academic li-
brary services.17
Even though the length of SERV-
QUAL, and the repetition of the set of 22
statements (as part of both ideal and ac-
tual service expectations), make the data
collection instrument somewhat cumber-
some to use, return rates have varied from
27% to 76%18 and the reliability of test
scores has been demonstrated. Library
staff, however, cannot extensively alter
the statements of expectations within the
standard SERVQUAL design to address
local circumstances and preferences with-
out challenging the designer’s assertion
that the statements fully reflect the dimen-
sions.
THE PRESENT STUDY
Problem Statement
SERVQUAL is the data collection in-
strument most frequently used to measure
service quality and to convey how cus-
tomers judge the quality of service in
many service industries. Although its ap-
peal to libraries is growing, SERV-
QUAL’s standardized statement of ser-
vice attributes as the basis for judging
service quality in libraries limits its appli-
cability for improving specific local ser-
vices. On the other hand, the approach
taken by Hernon and his colleagues19 en-
ables a library to identify those attributes
of greatest local importance for service
improvement. No studies have attempted
to combine both approaches and to deter-
mine the extent to which the resulting
instrument provides insights useful for lo-
cal library planning and decision making.
This study customized the instrument
for local use, while accepting the Gaps
Model of Service Quality, which is fun-
damental to the design of the SERV-
QUAL instrument. The goal of the instru-
ment and approach that this study
explored was to target actual service ele-
ments for improvement, to weigh the
evaluation of service elements relative to
the importance that customers place on
them, and to encourage the allocation of
resources for meeting those expectations
that a library and its customers deem im-
portant. Nitecki added that:

“The goal of the instrument
and approach that this study
explored was to target actual
service elements for
improvement, to weigh the
evaluation of service elements
relative to the importance that
customers place on them, and
to encourage the allocation of
resources for meeting those
expectations that a library and
its customers deem important.”
Academic library staff and managers need to
better understand what influences users’
judgments of service quality, what is ex-
pected from specific services, and what im-
provements in service design and delivery
are effective. They need to understand their
users not merely as recipients of services
offered, but as partners in the development
and implementation of services to make
higher education and research experiences
more successful from the customer’s per-
spective.20
Objectives
The study objectives were to:
● Develop and test an approach for con-
verting SERVQUAL into an instru-
ment that reflects the expectations of a
library and its customers;
● Determine the feasibility of libraries
pursuing that approach; and
●
Compare study findings to other uses
of SERVQUAL within LIS.
Unlike the work of Colleen Cook and
Bruce Thompson,21 our goal was neither
to produce an instrument that can neces-
sarily be applied across institutions nor to
use the resulting data to make compari-
sons among so-called peer institutions.
Rather, our work centered on developing
and testing an approach by which individ-
ual institutions can set and assess those
expectations that have local value. The
question not addressed in our research is
“Does a set of quantifiable core service
attributes or expectations exist across in-
stitutions and user groups?” That question
is premature for us to probe at this time.
Procedures
The setting for this study was Yale
University, where the library staff refer to
users or customers as readers (hereafter
this word will be used). In 1998, we
agreed to collaborate in the investigation
of the study objectives. As a first step,
Peter Hernon spoke before library staff on
customer service and service quality. The
Service Quality Improvement Council,
composed of staff throughout the library
system, then reviewed the “Aspects of
Service Quality” and “Sample Statements
on Service Quality Expectations”22 to de-
velop a set of core service attributes for
library readers to assess. Once that list
had been developed, it was shared with
various groups of readers, predominately
students, which suggested some alterna-
tive attributes and changes in the wording
for different statements of expectations.
The university librarian and the associate
university librarian (for reader services)
reviewed the emerging list, recommend-
ing some alternative wording and at-
tributes, and concluded that the list of test
service attributes was meaningful for
planning and decision-making purposes.
Finally, we reviewed the draft document
and placed the various attributes in the
form of a questionnaire that, basically,
adhered to the SERVQUAL format. We
reviewed the format of the instrument and
the sequencing and wording of statements
and also asked the university librarian for
any final comments. Based on his re-
sponses, we rewrote some statements and
verified that each question on the survey
had value for library planning and deci-
sion making.
The final questionnaire (see Appendix
A), is divided into three sections. The first
one combines two parts of SERVQUAL
and explores both reader expectations and
delivery perceptions regarding 40 state-
ments. Respondents were also given an
opportunity to identify any other expecta-
tions. The next section contains state-
ments of the same five dimensions found
in SERVQUAL and seeks readers’ per-
ceptions of the relative importance of
each dimension to their evaluation of ser-
vice quality; thus, it is possible to make
some general comparisons to related re-
search. The final section contains an over-
all expectations question and seeks (1)
information about service provided at the
various Yale University libraries, and (2)
descriptive information about the respon-
dents. The survey was printed on 16“ ⫻
11” paper and folded in half; thus, pre-
senting on one piece of paper a page for
the cover letter and three pages for the
survey. As a result, it was easy for respon-
dents to view the entire questionnaire at a
quick glance.
Because an examination of service
quality requires input from current read-
ers, we rejected any technique that inves-
tigated the entire population (or drew a
probability sample) of students, staff, and
faculty. Some of these individuals might
not use the libraries. Completing in-house
surveys at Yale University is uncommon,
and we were, therefore, concerned that
some readers might resent being ap-
proached within the library and asked to
participate. Telephone and in-person in-
terviewing were also rejected as too time-
consuming and costly to execute. An e-
mail survey was also not pursued because
circulation records do not record e-mail
addresses; thus, it would have been very
time-consuming to ascertain those ad-
dresses. As a result, we decided to risk a
low return rate and a possible self-se-
lected sample. We distributed a printed
questionnaire through the U.S. mail; re-
spondents were asked to complete and
mail it back to the library.
From the population of those readers
who had borrowed a book within the past
year, a random sample of 500 participants
was selected in the fall 1999. The partic-
ipants were mailed a copy of the question-
naire, together with a cover letter and a
return envelope (with postage provided).
The identity of participants was kept con-
fidential and retained only for the purpose
of tracking who returned and did not re-
turn completed questionnaires. Later that
semester, non-respondents were sent a
second copy of the form, with a new
cover letter, and invited to participate in
the study.
A total of 226 faculty members, stu-
dents, university staff, and other (e.g., vis-
iting scholars) responded, for a return rate
of 45.2%. It is interesting to note that one
faculty member wrote a letter in which he
explained that, although he did not want
to complete the survey, he believes the
library provides “excellent” service.
Moreover, he inquired about how to make
a financial contribution to the library’s
collection!
Survey responses were entered in an
Excel file and the data were transferred to
Statistical Package for the Social Sci-
ences (SPSS for the PC version 10.0) for
data analysis. All of the data were verified
to ensure the accuracy of data entry, and
significance testing was set at p ⫽ .05.
FINDINGS
An examination of completed survey
forms indicated that respondents did not
indiscriminately mark the same number
for each statement. Rather, they appeared
July 2000 261
to have read and thought about each state- Figure 1
ment before answering it. Further evi- Depiction of Quadrants
dence of the care that respondents took in
completion of the survey is that 171
(76%) wrote brief comments on the form.
Respondents
Of the 226 respondents, 224 identified
their status as faculty, students, staff, or
other. Overwhelmingly, they were gradu-
ate or undergraduate students (183 or
81.7%); 23 (10.3%) were faculty, 14
(6.2%) were staff, and 4 (1.8%) classified
themselves as “other.” To address whether
the respondents comprised a self-selected
sample, we compared the status of the sam-
ple to that of the respondents. There was no
significant difference between both groups
(␹2 3.213, df ⫽ 3, p ⬎ .05). The respon-
dents consequently do not represent a self-
selected sample; findings can be generaliz-
able to the population of Yale readers who
have recently borrowed material.
Only one respondent (0.04%) marked
nonuse of the libraries during this school
term; 186 (82.7%) used the libraries at
least once a week. Among the respon-
dents, 42 (18.7%) characterize their li-
brary use as daily, and 95 (42.2%) indi-
cated their use was several times per
week.
Which of the 40 Service Attributes
Quadrant analysis, which is frequently expectations, these service features merit
Are Very Important to the Customers
used in marketing, is a graphic correlation improvement. Any attributes present in
and for the Library to Meet?
technique that produces data easy to visu- Quadrant 3 are relatively unimportant to
Respondents, on average, ranked the alize.23 The technique plots data about the readers, but readers associate those
importance of the 40 attributes that con- service attributes into four quadrants de- attributes with library service. The staff
tributed to the library’s quality of service fined by two dimensions: one reflects the might refocus the service so that its image
between 5.1 and 6.8 on the seven-point importance that customers give service matches the attributes shown in Quad-
scale. This relatively high range of rank- attributes, while the other indicates the
ings suggests that all of the factors se- extent to which customers think a partic-
lected by the managers as important were ular service has the attributes. Figure 1
so to the readers. The perceptions among illustrates the implications assigned to at- Figure 2
readers of how well the Yale University tributes falling within the four quadrants, The 40 Service Attributes Studied
libraries deliver each service attribute when the first dimension is plotted along
ranged, on average, between 4.0 and 5.9 the horizontal axis as the ideal expecta-
on the seven-point scale. In absolute tion for excellent service quality, and the
terms, these rankings of performance are second dimension is plotted along the ver-
all above the scale’s midpoint but indicate tical axis as the library’s performance.
little about the relative importance of an Those attributes falling into Quadrant
attribute to each score. However, when 1 are very important to the readers, and
considered in relation to the expectations these users perceive the library as pos-
placed on each factor, the resulting corre- sessing them or as performing well in
lations offer insights about where manag- their delivery. These are attributes that the
ers should focus attention to improve the library should retain in any reconfigura-
quality of service provided. The relation- tion of its services and that the library
ship between the two measures— expec- should not see a decline in its ability to
tations for excellence and perceptions of meet. Attributes falling into Quadrant 2
service delivered— can be presented in are also most important to the readers but
one of two ways, visually through quad- are not perceived as being prominent fea-
rant analysis and numerically as gap tures of a library service. Within a library
scores. culture that strives to respond to reader

262 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

rants 1; alternatively, library staff might
want to revisit resources allocated to pro-
viding the service attributes in Quadrant 3
and review the relative expense of provid-
ing a less valued activity. Quadrant 4 in-
cludes attributes that are neither valued by
readers nor performed well by the library.
These attributes might be ignored and re-
sources reallocated.
Quadrant analysis was used to display
the data gathered (see Figure 2). Eleven
attributes were very important to readers,
and the library performed them well
(Quadrant 1), and three attributes were of
relatively low importance and low perfor-
mance (Quadrant 4). These 14 attributes
carry less urgency to review for improve-
ment in performance (see Table 1). Read-
ers ranked 26 attributes as important for
service excellence but they feel that these
attributes are less evident in the library’s
delivery of service quality (Quadrant 2),
and they did not identify any factors as
unimportant but within the library’s per-
ceived service strengths (Quadrant 3).
“Readers ranked 26 attributes
as important for service
excellence but they feel that
these attributes are less evident
in the library’s delivery of
service quality (Quadrant 2),
and they did not identify any
factors as unimportant but
within the library’s perceived
service strengths (Quadrant
3).”
A second technique to present survey
findings is to calculate gap scores and
review the numerical relationship among
the attributes. Based on this analysis, the
library did not surpass reader expectations
on any service attribute, but it did come
close to meeting most expectations. The
difference between expectations and per-
ceptions for 17 factors fell within one
point of meeting expectations (when the
gap score was rounded to the full digit),
whereas the gap for 11 factors fell beyond
one point. The following service at-
tributes should command further explora-
tion because they are the furthest from
meeting reader expectations:
● The library Web site enables me to in-
teract with library staff (gap of ⫺1.5);
● Materials I requested to be paged
come within the time frame quoted by
the library staff (gap of ⫺1.5);
● When I request materials, I am told
how long they will take to arrive through
interlibrary loan (gap of ⫺1.5);
● The online catalog has easy-to-follow
instructions (gap of ⫺1.6);
● Computer printers in good working or-
der are available when I need them
(gap of ⫺1.9);
● Photocopiers in good working order
are available when I need them (gap of
⫺1.9);
● Material are in their proper places on
the shelves (gap of ⫺1.9);
● Directional signs are clear and helpful
(gap of ⫺2.0)
● Materials are reshelved promptly (gap
of ⫺2.1);
● It is easy to find out, in advance, when
the library is open (gap of ⫺2.1); and
● The online catalog is an accurate
source of information about all mate-
rials held by the library (gap of ⫺2.2).
It is important to remember that the
judgments about the importance of the
attributes and the perceptions of services
delivered are relative and are merely in-
dicators of where priorities might be
placed for improvement efforts. In some
instances, more exploration may be
needed to understand more fully the na-
ture of reader’s expectations and how ser-
vices can be improved.
Finally, 12 statements had a quality
gap score (difference between the ideal
and actual mean scores) of less than 1.00:
● The library Web site is attractive (gap
of ⫺0.1);
● Library materials encompass curricu-
lum-supporting videos and films (gap
of ⫺0.8);
●
Computer dedicated only for online
catalog use in good working order is
available when I need it (gap of ⫺0.9);
● The staff provide assistance to help me
evaluate information I find (gap of
⫺0.9);
● There is a paging service for retrieving
materials (gap of ⫺0.9);
● The online catalog indicates the num-
ber of copies available (gap of ⫺0.56);
● The staff are friendly and easy to talk
to (gap of ⫺0.73);
● The online catalog is easily accessible
from outside the library building (gap
of ⫺0.74);
● The staff are courteous and polite (gap
of ⫺0.80);
● The library Web site enables me to log
on easily (gap of ⫺0.87);
● The staff are expert in finding general
information (gap of ⫺0.90); and
● Library materials meet my course/re-
search needs (gap of ⫺0.92).
Other Expectations
When asked if there were other expec-
tations that they considered important, 75
respondents (33.2%) responded in the af-
firmative and listed one service attribute;
32 (14.2%) identified a second attribute.
The attributes suggested tended to focus
on the comprehensiveness of collections,
remote access to those collections, accu-
racy of the check-in process for books
once readers returned them to the library,
and the amount of fines (e.g., “fines for
overdue books are reasonable”). There
was also some repetition with the at-
tributes previously discussed, such as
those covering library hours, equipment
in good working order, and the need to
reshelve material in a timely manner. One
respondent wanted the library to give
more consideration to the “ergonometric
character of the library environment.”
Percent Allocation to the SERVQUAL
Dimensions
Section B of the survey (Appendix A)
listed the five dimensions of SERVQUAL
applicable to libraries and the services
they offer. The investigators queried re-
spondents about the importance of each
dimension to them when they evaluate the
quality of library service. Respondents
were asked to allocate 100 points among
the five dimensions according to how im-
portant each one was to them. Table 2
displays the results. “Reliability” received
the largest percentage allocation and “em-
pathy” the least.
When asked if there was anything else
not included in the five dimensions that
they find important in evaluating the qual-
ity of service received, 63 (27.9%) re-
sponded in the affirmative. Their re-
sponses tended to focus on the adequacy
or comprehensiveness of collections, li-
brary hours, the return of books, the fine
policy, and the ease in finding materials
they sought.
July 2000 263
 Table 1
Summary of Quadrant Analysis Findings for the 40 Expectations Probed in the Survey1
Quadrant 1 (Important Factors to Retain—Maintain High Performance)
1. Library materials meet my course/research needs.
2. The library Web site enables me to log on whenever I want.
3. The library Web site enables me to log on easily.
4. The staff are expert in finding general information.
5. It is easy to find out, in advance, when the library is open.
6. The staff are approachable and welcoming.
7. The staff are courteous and polite.
8. The library Web site enables me to access a variety of electronic resources.
9. The online catalog indicates the number of copies available.
10. The online catalog is easily accessible from outside the library building.
11. The staff are friendly and easy to talk to.
Quadrant 2 (Important Factors to Improve Performance)
1. The online catalog displays information that is clear and easy to understand.
2. The library Web site is easy to navigate.
3. The staff are available when I need them.
4. The online catalog has easy-to-follow instructions.
5. Computer research workstations (e.g., for access to the Web) in good working order are available when I need them.
6. The staff provide assistance to help me learn how to find information.
7. When I request materials, I am told how long they will take to arrive from restricted collections.
8. It is easy to browse print collections.
9. Materials I requested to be paged come wtihin the time frame quoted.
10. The library Web site includes online request forms (reference and interlibrary loan).
11. The staff provide assistance to help me retrieve resources I need.
12. The staff provide assistance to help me identify resources I need.
13. Computers dedicated only for online catalog use, in good working order, are available when I need them.
14. The staff are expert in the literature of my discipline.
15. Material are in their proper places on the shelves.
16. It is easy to find where materials are located in the building.
17. Materials are reshelved promptly.
18. Directional signs are clear and helpful.
19. Photocopiers in good working order are available when I need them.
20. The online catalog is an accurate source of information about all materials held.
21. When I request materials, I am told how long they will take to arrive through interlibrary loan.
22. Computer printers in good working order are available when I need them.
23. Microform/fiche readers in good working order are available when I need them.
24. Microform/fiche reader/printers in good working order are available when I need them.
25. There is a paging service for retrieving materials.
26. Library materials encompass curriculum-supporting videos and films.
Quadrant 4 (Relatively Unimportant Factors Not to Address Immediately)
1. The library Web site enables me to interact with library staff.
2. The library Web site is attractive.
3. The staff provide assistance to help me evaluate information I find.
1
Note: See Appendix B for an explanation of the quadrants.

264 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

 Table 2
The Five SERVQUAL Dimensions
Percent Allocation
Dimension of 100 Points
Tangibles 1
18
2
Reliability 32
Responsiveness3 22
Assurance 4
16
5
Empathy 12
Notes: 1
The appearance of the library’s physical facilities, equipment, and communication materials.
2
The library’s ability to perform promised services dependably and accurately.
3
The library’s willingness to help readers and provide prompt services.
4
The knowledge and courtesy of the library staff and their ability to inspire trust and confidence.
5
The caring, individualized attention the library provides to its readers.
Overall Expectations Met
Respondents were asked to rate, on a
10-point scale ranging from falls short to
meets and to surpasses, “Overall, to what
extent, does the service that Yale Univer-
sity libraries provide meet your expecta-
tions for an excellent library?” The mean
response to this question was 7.11 [n ⫽
221, SD ⫽ 1.79]. The mean rating on the
seven-point scale for how Yale University
libraries deliver services on the 40 factors
was 5.1224; if converted to a 10-point
scale for comparison, this Yale perfor-
mance mean was 7.32. The correlation
(using the Pearson Product-Moment Cor-
relation, r,) between the mean scores of
responses to the question and the perfor-
mance factors was positive and signifi-
cant (r ⫽ 0.523, p ⬍ .05). Clearly, Yale
University libraries, overall, are meeting,
but not surpassing, customer expectations.
Compliments
Some respondents took the time to
compliment the library for having high-
quality collections and library staff for
their “excellent” assistance. As one re-
spondent wrote, “I love Yale’s libraries.
They are my pride and joy. Thank you for
working to improve them.”
Potential Problems
The question about having other ex-
pectations, together with the questions
about the comprehensiveness of the five
dimensions and about any library depart-
ment or service that did not merit a rank-
ing of “7” on a 10-point scale, produced
opportunities for respondents to point out
problems. A number of the written com-
ments focused on the need for the return
of books to be “easy and secure.” Or, as
one respondent phrased it, an expectation
could be “discharging books properly in
Mean
(Standard Deviation)
17.64 (12.14)
31.87 (13.75)
21.72 (9.07)
16.28 (7.66)
12.45 (6.91)
order to avoid inappropriate fines.” Some
respondents perceived that, although they
had returned books on time, they were,
nonetheless, charged for being delin-
quent. They were dissatisfied with the
outcome of the appeals process and, in a
few instances, with the process itself.
Some respondents wanted the notice
for overdue materials and for the notifi-
cation of recalled books to be sent via
e-mail, and some believed that fines were
set too high. There was also repeated
mention of one library and the perception
of poor quality of service provided [e.g.,
“a good amount of important books are
missing or could not be found (even by
staff)”], and the “high cost” of photocopy-
ing in comparison to what peer institu-
tions charge or the “high cost and poor
quality” in comparison to what “a stan-
dard copy shop” offers.
Some respondents mentioned that they
had requested a book that was either in
processing or on order, but were disap-
pointed that they were not notified when
the book was placed in the collection.
Others thought that the online public ac-
cess catalog did not always accurately list
availability: titles listed as available, they
explained, might not be on the shelf.
Some even mentioned the need for better
signage and lighting in the stack area
(e.g., “differentiate between emergency
exits and regular exits”).
DISCUSSION
The respondents to this survey were sim-
ilar to those in a number of other studies
applying the SERVQUAL instrument in
academic libraries, namely they tended to
be students. Typically, in other studies
conducted at Yale, faculty accounted for
4 – 6% of the respondents; in this study,
the percentage was 10.3.
Thomas A. Childers and Nancy A. Van
House found that library users show a
marked preference for self-service,24 and
Peter Hernon and Ellen Altman in their
Number research into service quality noted a cus-
221 tomer preference to be self-reliant.25 In-
formation-handling technologies, it
222 seems, tend to promote a desire for self-
222 service and self-reliance. An examination
222 of the factors appearing in both Quad-
rants 1 and 2 (see Table 1) suggests that
221 readers, to some degree, wanted to navi-
gate the library on their own. As indicated
by the statements in Quadrant 1, they
showed a willingness to consult with
staff. They regarded the demeanor of the
staff as very important and valued “easy”
access to library materials, both remotely
via the Web and on-site. As well, some
statements about the online public access
catalog (OPAC) and the library’s Web
site appeared in the first quadrant. “Easy”
access also frequently appeared among
the statements in Quadrant 2. Here, Yale
readers also expressed a desire to have
sources in their proper places and to have
displaced sources promptly reshelved.
Readers wanted staff to be experts in find-
ing general information (Quadrant 1) and
to be experts in the literature of their
disciplines (Quadrant 2). They also val-
ued staff assistance in learning how to
find, identify, and evaluate information
(Quadrant 2).
Because section B of the survey pro-
vides a direct connection between this
study and other applications of SERV-
QUAL itself, comparing percentage allo-
cation among various studies can provide
insight (see Table 3). Excepting the study
reported here, “reliability” is the most im-
portant dimension and “tangibles” is the
least important. This study shows that “re-
liability” produced the largest percentage
allocation, but that “empathy” was the
lowest. It would seem that the five dimen-
sions merit reconceptualization. De-
meanor cuts across a couple of dimen-
sions, and the five dimensions fail to
adequately address the desire to be self-
supporting or self-reliant.
Similar patterns appeared in compari-
sons with questions posed in numerous
library applications of SERVQUAL that
asked respondents to identify the most
and least important dimension (see Table
4). Except for a study of reference ser-
vices, all applicants identified reliability
as the single most important service di-
mension. With the exception of the cur-
rent study, library customers identified
tangibles as the least important.
July 2000 265
 Table 3
Comparison of Percent Allocation of 100 Points to the Five SERVQUAL Dimensions in Different Studies
Dimensions1 (%)
Study Service Setting N Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy
a
Zeithmal et al. Multiple industries 1,936 11 32 22 19 16
(non-library)
Nitecki & Hernonb Academic library 221 18 32 22 16 12
c
Coleman et al. Academic library 198 16 27 24 19 15
Edwards & Browned Academic library 80 9 36 23 17 15
Niteckie Academic library 140 9 39 23 17 13
(ILL)
Steinf Academic library 246 8 41 24 16 11
(ILL)
Hébertg Public library 130 12 35 20 20 14
(ILL)
Niteckie Academic library 95 10 26 25 22 18
(reference)
Niteckih Academic library 90 10 31 23 24 16
(reference)
Niteckie Academic library 101 9 35 24 19 13
(reserve collection)
Whitei Special libraries n/a 12 34 23 18 13
1
Notes: Based on calculated percent point allocation on questions B1 through B5.
a
Valarie A. Zeithaml, A. Parasuraman, & Leonard L. Berry, Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations (New York: The Free Press, 1990).
b
The reference is to the present study.
c
Vicki Coleman, Yi (Daniel) Xiao, Linda Blair, & Bill Chollett, “Toward a TQM Paradigm: Using SERVQUAL to Measure Library Service Quality,” College & Research
Libraries 58 (May 1997): 237–251.
d
Susan Edwards & Mairéad Browne, “Quality in Information Services: Do Users and Librarians Differ in Their Expectations?” Library & Information Science Research 17 (1995):
163–182
e
Danuta A. Nitecki, An Assessment of the Applicability of SERVQUAL Dimensions as Customer-based Crietera for Evaluating Quality of Services in an Academic Library.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1995.
f
Joan Stein, “Feedback from a Captive Audience: Reflections on the Results of a SERVQUAL Survey of Interlibrary Loan Services at Carnegie Mellon University Libraries,” in
Proceedings of the 2nd Northumbria International Conference on Performance Measurement in Libraries and Information Services (Newcastle upon Tyne, England; Department
of Information & Library Management, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, 1998), pp. 207–222.
g
Françoise Hébert, “Service Quality: An Unobtrusive Investigation of Interlibrary Loan in Large Public Libraries in Canada,” Library & Information Science Research 16 (1994):
3–21.
h
Danuta A. Nitecki, “Assessment of Service Quality in Academic Libraries: Focus on the Applicability of the SERVQUAL,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Northumbria International
Conference on Performance Measurement in Libraries and Information Services (Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Department of Information & Library Management, University
of Northumbria at Newcastle, 1998), pp. 181–196.
i
Marilyn D. White, Measuring Customer Satisfaction and Quality of Services in Special Libraries (unpublished final report to Special Libraries Association, 1994).

Written comments on the question-
naire reflected some dissatisfaction with
the five dimensions adequately covering
library services. For example, some re-
spondents commented that none of the
dimensions addressed the breadth, depth,
and content of collections. Others men-
tioned that they did not see the difference
between “the library’s willingness to help
readers and provide prompt service” and
“the caring, individualized attention the
library provides to its readers.” They also
saw some overlap between these state-
ments and “the knowledge and courtesy
of the library staff and their ability to
inspire trust and confidence.” One respon-
dent argued that appearance is less impor-
tant than the “functionality of the library:
facilities, equipment, and so forth (e.g.,
fewer dead terminals),“ and another was cator of service quality should not be
even stronger in making the point: “ap- taken out of context.
pearance means nothing—functionality is Clearly, SERVQUAL is not an instru-
everything.” ment for measuring satisfaction, and the ro-
Overall Expectations Met
As previously noted, the mean score “SERVQUAL is not an
to characterize the extent to which re- instrument for measuring
sponding readers’ expectations were satisfaction, and the robust
met was 7.11. In general, a library
might strive to achieve a mean of at
nature of the SERVQUAL score
least 8 to shrink the breadth of the scale measuring the gap between the
(7–10), conveying more than a sense ideal expectations and actual
that service expectations were surpassed service performance is a
and not merely met.26 However, before
making this characterization and taking meaningful gauge of quality
action to improve on a mean score of performance for library
7.11, library staff must remember that readers.”
this single dimension rating as an indi-

266 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

 Table 4
Most and Least Important SERVQUAL Dimensions by Library Service Setting
Percent Indicating Dimension is MOST Important1 (%)
Multiple
Study Service Setting N Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Responses
Niteckia ILL 138 1 72 18 3 3 2
Steinb ILL 246 2 79 17 3 0 0
a
Nitecki Reference 92 1 32 37 18 10 2
c
Nitecki Reference 91 1 58 12 24 3 1
a
Nitecki Reserve 109 1 62 21 13 1 2
Nitecki & Hernond Academic library 219 15 62 16 4 5 0
2
Percent Indicating Dimension Is LEAST Important (%)
a
Nitecki ILL 139 83 0 0 3 10 3
b
Stein ILL 243 79 0 0 4 16 0
Niteckia Reference 94 71 4 1 4 19 0
c
Nitecki Reference 92 84 0 0 5 11 0
a
Nitecki Reserve 112 78 3 1 5 10 4
d
Nitecki & Hernon Academic library 219 32 1 4 12 51 0
1
Notes: Based on responses to Question B6.
2
Based on responses to Question B7.
a
Danuta A. Nitecki, An Assessment of the Applicability of SERVQUAL Dimensions as Customer-based Criteria for Evaluating Quality of Services in an Academic Library
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1995).
b
Joan Stein, “Feedback from a Captive Audience: Reflections on the Results of a SERVQUAL Survey of Interlibrary Loan Services at Carnegie Mellon University Libraries,” in
Proceedings of the 2nd Northumbria International Conference on Performance Measurement in Libraries and Information Services (Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Department
of Information & Library Management, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, 1998), pp. 207–222.
c
Danuta A. Nitecki, “Assessment of Service Quality in Academic Libraries: Focus on the Applicability of the SERVQUAL,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Northumbria International
Conference on Performance Measurement in Libraries and Information Services (Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Department of Information & Library Management, University
of Northumbria at Newcastle, 1998), pp. 181–196.
d
The reference is to the present study.

bust nature of the SERVQUAL score mea-
suring the gap between the ideal
expectations and actual service performance
is a meaningful gauge of quality perfor-
mance for library readers. However, the
foundation of this instrument is customers’
perceptions, which may differ from other
data collected on service performance. For
example, through a questionnaire designed
for analyzing service quality in terms of
gaps, readers might record their perception
about “the availability of computers to use
the online catalog when needed” as low.
Alternative data collection methods might
establish the frequency with which comput-
ers are not available for use. Staff should
review the relationship between both sets of
data.27 If actual measures of performance
on the service attributes differ from those of
customers’ perceptions of performance,
then staff should examine the basis of cus-
tomers’ perceptions. Hearsay, outdated ex-
periences— ones based on a time period
before service improvements were
made— or isolated incidents of dissatisfac-
tion may negatively affect overall impres-
sions of service quality. However, these
should not be dismissed as unimportant be-
cause they shape the library image of pro-
viding high quality service, a perception
that resides with a library’s customers.
If studies do not differentiate partici-
pants by the service used, some percep-
tions might not be based on actual famil-
iarity with a service. There might be a
difference in use of the instrument as a
gauge of overall service quality and as
one of a more narrowly defined service.
As a result, investigators might, as this
study did, explore overall perceptions and
expectations, or they might explore opin-
ions about use of a specific service (e.g.,
reference or interlibrary loan).
Nonetheless, library staff should con-
tinue to conduct surveys such as the one
reported here and seek to reduce the gap
between ideal and actual service attributes
for those expectations they deem impor-
tant to meet. They might also hold focus
group interviews with readers, probe the
relative importance and unimportance of
the attributes grouped through quadrant
analysis, seek to understand the reasons
for perceived low performance, and so-
licit suggestions for how the library can
improve and surpass quality expectations.
Any significant problems that are uncov-
ered should be corrected. Through educa-
tion and marketing, staff may also seek to
manage customer expectations and to
align them with the library’s goals and
scope of its service programs. The staff
might also periodically collect spot com-
ments on specific service areas and con-
duct a satisfaction survey, one that centers
around the question reported as C1 in
Appendix A,28 or post selected questions
on the library’s Web sites.
Cost of Replication
The major costs for libraries wanting
to replicate this survey relate to staff time
in developing the list of expectations to
survey, in selecting the sample, in prepar-
ing the surveys for mailing, in logging in
the responses, and in entering and verify-
ing the data for analysis. (It is assumed
that a library would already possess
spreadsheet software and might not need
a statistical analysis software package, if
the motivation for conducting the study is
limited to managing services.) A general
estimate of the amount of labor required
to perform each task includes:

July 2000 267

 ● Deciding on the attributes to study and
designing the survey (30 hours);
● Selecting the study sample, once the
programming to extract the informa-
tion was performed (2 hours of report
writing and processing time);
● Duplicating the questionnaire (the cost
for the printing of 500 copies was
$96.00); Producing copies for the fol-
low-up survey to 400 non-respondents
increased printing costs ($173.00);
● Preparing the surveys for mailing, in-
cluding producing and affixing the
mailing labels for the sample (40
hours);
● Paying for postage, including the cost
of the original mailing (500) and the
return envelopes, (500) plus the sec-
ond mailing to 400 non-respondents
($594, or 1,800 ⫻ $0.33);
● Entering the data from the returned
questionnaires (15 hours);
● Verifying the accuracy of data entry
(15 hours); and
● Transcribing and organizing qualita-
tive comments (20 hours).
By having access to the survey re-
ported in Appendix A, library staff should
save time in selecting candidate service
attributes to investigate and in designing a
questionnaire. They can definitely adapt
the form to meet local needs (see Note 22
for examples of other service attributes).
Moreover, if the staff prefer to conduct
in-house surveys, they save on mailing
costs but increase staff time for the distri-
bution and collection of survey forms.
FURTHER RESEARCH
In a presentation of a pilot project using
SERVQUAL in 12 member institutions of
the Association of Research Libraries
(ARL), Bruce Thompson, professor of ed-
ucational psychology and distinguished re-
search scholar, Texas A&M University, de-
clared that he and his colleagues were
striving for a 20 –30% return rate, using a
Web-based questionnaire.29 The study re-
ported here had a higher return rate but,
although still representative of the sample,
was lower than what we would have pre-
ferred. Clearly, there is need for research
that explores how to improve response rates
in survey research related to service quality.
Also, there is need for more case studies
that continue to review and refine the ap-
proach presented in this article as well as to
experiment with different methods of de-
268 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
ploying a survey: mail, in-house, and via
electronic media.30
The Texas A&M study is developing
mechanisms by which libraries might attach
the survey instrument to their Web site and
encourage customer compliance via e-mail
communications. This approach may re-
quire more effort by the participants than
for them to complete a brief print question-
naire. Researchers might also experiment
with the use of comment cards containing
abbreviated information from the question-
naire reported in Appendix A to focus on
specific service features. They might ex-
plore the interconnection between measures
of service quality and of satisfaction. Fur-
thermore, staff might replicate the survey on
a regular basis and ascertain whether spe-
cific actions will reduce the breadth of the
gap and whether the library can move more
service attributes into Quadrant 1. Other
applications of the gap model should also be
explored; for instance, some investigators
have begun to compare how staff perceive
customers will respond in comparison to
how customers actually respond.31
For those libraries wanting to use a form
on an on-going basis, researchers should
experiment with the use of a 10-point scale
so that libraries can more precisely monitor
the impact of service improvements on ser-
vice quality. And, finally, further work
ought to address the application of the five
SERVQUAL dimensions in libraries, in-
cluding the reorganization and expansion of
the dimensions. At present, they inconsis-
tently and, thus, inadequately represent ac-
ademic libraries as service organizations.
The next phase of developing an assess-
ment method is to explore how library staff
use the data obtained through the applica-
tion of the survey instrument. How can in-
formation be organized and presented to the
staff to motivate them in their efforts to
improve service? What preparation is
needed to ensure that staff will embrace
assessment data as part of the accountability
movement and not react defensively to the
findings? Is assessment that is conducted
centrally more or less meaningful or rele-
vant to the staff than performance moni-
tored by individual service units? What
amount of detail is relevant to the service
staff? What types of comparison over time
and across service units are valuable? How
does feedback on gap perceptions influence
staff ambitions for surpassing the meeting
of customer expectations? Is there an effi-
cient way to collate written remarks on
questionnaires?
CONCLUSION
The survey form and approach presented
in this article merit continued examina-
tion, especially because the findings have
clear implications to library planning and
decision making. Individual libraries can
review and modify the service attributes
presented in Appendix A and produce an
instrument for their local customer input.
Part of the benefit in using the approach
identified here lays in internal staff re-
view and the selection of service at-
tributes for placement on the survey. The
staff, it is hoped, become more customer
or reader focused and more fully grasp
how each unit of the library contributes to
the overall quality of service provided.
“Individual libraries can review
and modify the service
attributes presented in
Appendix A and produce an
instrument for their local
customer input.”
Whatever decisions that a library makes
about which service attributes to probe, the
survey form should not be longer than the
one used in this study. The goal is to probe
the service attributes of greatest potential
value to both actual customers and service
providers, and not to overwhelm respon-
dents with choices, thereby raising false
hopes or expectations and producing an in-
strument where the scores may lack reliabil-
ity. Although, over time, the set of selected
attributes may change, they should continue
to reflect areas in which the library is com-
mitted to make service improvements as
necessary to respond to its customers’ ex-
pectations.
The importance of conducting an assess-
ment such as the one described in this arti-
cle is not limited to calculating measures of
which service attributes are important to
readers or which ones readers perceive as
delivered well. We also doubt the impor-
tance of such an investigation lies in any
implied comparison or ranking of service
quality across libraries. The importance, we
believe, rests with what will be done with
the insights gained. The quantified mea-
sures of expectations and service quality are
only valuable if staff discuss them and man-
agers help to establish action plans and
monitor service improvements. Open-ended
questions and commentaries in the margin
of the instrument provide opportunities for
respondents to share potential problems and
compliments. The compliments should be
passed along to the staff and the problems
should be reviewed and, where possible,
resolved.
The survey instrument, thus, becomes an
important communications channel be-
tween customers and staff. There is a need
to create a method of communications back
to the customers through library education
and marketing channels. The Gaps Model
of Service Quality contends that there are
several contributors to an institution’s abil-
ity to deliver quality service. We have only
explored here the one related to understand-
ing the customer’s expectations and percep-
tions of service quality. Of critical impor-
tance is the accurate communication of the
results of this understanding in the form of
service commitments to customers. A li-
brary needs to explain why it might not be
able to resolve all problems identified in
surveys. Clearly, complaints represent op-
portunities to improve service and to inter-
act directly with dissatisfied customers.
Complaints are valued feedback within a
library culture of service quality that exists
when staff divorce customer criticism from
personal judgments of performance and, in-
stead, focus on continually redesigning ser-
vices to exceed customer expectations of
what the library deems is its program.
A culture of service quality assessment
provides opportunities to demonstrate to
customers how what the staff learns about
customers’ expectations and perceptions
helps to shape the service that libraries
provide and the commitments that librar-
ians make to their customers. Such oppor-
tunities should not be ignored.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. Valarie A. Zeithaml, A. Parasuraman, &
Leonard L. Berry, Delivering Quality Ser-
vice: Balancing Customer Perceptions
and Expectations (New York: The Free
Press, 1990), p. 16.
2. Ibid.
3. Carol A. Reeves & David A. Bednar, “De-
fining Quality: Alternatives and Implica-
tions,” Academy of Management Review
19 (July 1994): 437.
4. Peter Hernon & John R. Whitman, Deliv-
ering Satisfaction and Service Quality: A
Customer-Based Approach for Libraries
(Chicago, IL: American Library Associa-
tion, 2000).
5. Ibid.
6. Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, Deliver-
ing Quality Service. See also Danuta A.
Nitecki, “Changing the Concept and Mea-
sure of Service Quality in Academic Librar-
ies,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 22
(May 1996): 182.
7. Ibid.
8. See Peter Hernon & Ellen Altman, Service
Quality in Academic Libraries (Norwood,
NJ: Ablex, 1996); Peter Hernon & Ellen
Altman, Assessing Service Quality: Satis-
fying the Expectations of Library Custom-
ers (Chicago, IL: American Library Asso-
ciation, 1998); Peter Hernon & Philip J.
Calvert, “Methods for Measuring Service
Quality in University Libraries in New
Zealand,” Journal of Academic Librarian-
ship 22 (September 1996): 387–391;
Philip J. Calvert & Peter Hernon, “Sur-
veying Service Quality within University
Libraries,” Journal of Academic Librari-
anship 23 (September 1997): 408 – 415.
9. Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, Deliver-
ing Quality Service, p. 26.
10. Nitecki, “Changing the Concept and Mea-
sure of Service Quality in Academic Li-
braries,” pp. 184 –185.
11. Danuta A. Nitecki, “Assessment of Service
Quality in Academic Libraries: Focus on the
Applicability of the SERVQUAL,” in Pro-
ceedings of the 2nd Northumbria Interna-
tional Conference on Performance Mea-
surement in Libraries and Information
Services (Newcastle upon Tyne, England:
Department of Information & Library Man-
agement, University of Northumbria at
Newcastle, 1998), p. 185. The Maryland
study mentioned in the quotation refers to
Danuta A. Nitecki, An Assessment of the
Applicability of SERVQUAL Dimensions as
Customer-based Criteria for Evaluating
Quality of Services in an Academic Library.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of Maryland, 1995.
12. Syed Saad Andaleeb & Patience L. Sim-
monds, “Explaining User Satisfaction
with Academic Libraries: Strategic Impli-
cations,” College & Research Libraries
59 (March 1998): 156 –167.
13. Emin Babakus & Gregory W. Boller, “An
Empirical Assessment of the SERV-
QUAL Scale,” Journal of Business Re-
search 24 (May 1992): 253–268.
14. Colleen Cook & Bruce Thompson, “Reli-
ability and Validity of SERVQUAL
Scores Used to Evaluate Perceptions of
Library Service Quality,” Journal of Aca-
demic Librarianship 26 (July 2000): 248.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Nitecki, “Changing the Concept and Mea-
sure of Service Quality in Academic Li-
braries,” p. 185.
18. Nitecki, “Assessment of Service Quality
in Academic Libraries,” p. 184.
19. Hernon & Whitman, Delivering Satisfac-
tion and Service Quality; Hernon & Alt-
man, Service Quality in Academic Librar-
ies; Hernon & Altman, Assessing Service
Quality; Hernon & Calvert, “Methods for
Measuring Service”; Calvert & Hernon,
“Surveying Service Quality within Univer-
sity Libraries.”
20. Nitecki, “Changing the Concept and Mea-
sure of Service Quality in Academic Li-
braries,” p. 188.
21. Cook & Thompson, “Reliability and Valid-
ity of SERVQUAL Scores Used to Evaluate
Perceptions of Library Service Quality.”
22. Hernon & Altman, Assessing Service
Quality, pp. 108 –112.
23. James Lynch, Robert Carver, Jr., & John
Michael Virgo, “Quadrant Analysis as a
Strategic Planning Technique in Curricu-
lum Development and Program Market-
ing,” Journal of Marketing for Higher Ed-
ucation 7 (1996): 17–32.
24. Thomas A. Childers & Nancy A. Van
House, What’s Good? Describing Your
Public Library’s Effectiveness (Chicago, IL:
American Library Association, 1993), p. 26.
25. See Hernon & Altman, Assessing Service
Quality; Hernon & Altman, Service Qual-
ity in Academic Libraries. See also Nicola
Harwood & Jillene Bydder, “Student Ex-
pectations of, and Satisfaction with, the
University Library,” Journal of Academic
Librarianship 24 (March 1998): 161–171.
26. See Hernon & Whitman, Delivering Sat-
isfaction and Service Quality. Clearly, the
study reported in this article deals with
service quality, and the complete interre-
lationship between service quality and sat-
isfaction were not explored here.
27. See Hernon & Altman, Assessing Service
Quality, Chapter 9.
28. See Hernon & Whitman, Delivering Sat-
isfaction and Service Quality.
29. Presentation before an invited audience at
the American Library Association Midwin-
ter Conference, San Antonio, January 15,
2000.
30. For guidance in the conduct of such a
survey, see Hernon & Altman, Assessing
Service Quality; Hernon & Whitman, De-
livering Satisfaction and Service Quality.
31. See Susan Edwards & Mairéad Browne,
“Quality in Information Services: Do Users
and Librarians Differ in Their Expectations,
Library & Information Science Research 17
(Spring 1995): 163–182.
July 2000 269
270 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
July 2000 271
272 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
 Appendix B
Use of Quadrant Analysis
In this study, the mean scores for
responses to the ranking of ideal expec-
tations and of Yale’s library perfor-
mance on each of the 40 statements of
service attributes were plotted for the
quadrant analysis. If the intersection of
the two axes is left at the neutral mid-
point value of 3.5 for each dimension,
then all attributes in this study fall
within Quadrant 1. This suggests initial
impressions that readers value all the
service factors as important for excel-
lent service quality and that they find
that library services at Yale possess
them all. To differentiate the relative
importance of the service attributes to
prioritize efforts to improve services, a
higher threshold of importance was set.
For the purposes of analysis, the quad-
rant axes were relocated to intersect at
the 5.5 value for each dimension. This
placed 11 attributes in the newly de-
fined Quadrant 1; these correspond
with an importance to readers of 5.5 or
more on a seven-point scale and with a
perception that they exist in the library’
services ranked along equally high lev-
els. Twenty-six attributes fell into the
new Quadrant 2, reflecting important
attributes for readers that the library
does not deliver above the 5.5 level of
performance. Among the attributes
deemed by readers as less important (be-
low the 5.5 level), only three were not
perceived as part of the library’s service
strengths; these fell within Quadrant 4.
No attributes fell within Quadrant 3;
readers did not see any service factors as
unimportant but performed relatively well
by the library.
The service attributes are plotted in
Figure 2, and Table 1 lists those attributes
falling in Quadrants 1, 2, and 4.
July 2000 273