Development and evaluation of the mobile library service system success model

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to develop and analyse the usage status, level of satisfaction and success model of a mobile library service system in Taiwan. The research results could serve as a reference for the development, evaluation and improvement of libraries’ mobile services. Design/methodology/approach – This study designed a mobile library service system and used the informational system success model to evaluate its use status and level of satisfaction and, thus, to develop a success model for a mobile library service system. Findings – Results showed that students’ level of satisfaction with the mobile library service system had a positive correlation with the usage status indicated that the system could help them to improve their work efficiency, such as by reducing time spent searching for books and cost of obtaining electronic resources. The students also expressed a willingness to continue using the mobile library service system. Practical implications – In general, the students thought that the mobile library service system could reduce the time needed to search for book-related information, but that the service quality should be improved. Therefore, this study suggests that the education and training of system service personnel should be enhanced and that easy-to-use functions be provided to promote the users’ level of satisfaction and willingness to use the system. Originality/value – This study developed a mobile library service system and invited students studying in the National University of Tainan, in southern Taiwan, to be the subjects in an experiment, with a goal to evaluate the success of a model mobile library. The findings showed that the overall explanatory power (R2) of this model was 55 per cent and, thus, that the findings of this work have practical significance.

The Importance of Public Library for Youth Development in Malaysia

“…A study by Yueh Min Huang et al (2015) shows that e-resources and digital libraries are becoming increasingly important channels for obtaining information. A large number of libraries have consequently introduced mobile communication technologies into their library services, enabling users to search for information from anywhere and at any time.…”

A Rapid Review of the Reporting and Characteristics of Instruments Measuring Satisfaction with Reference Service in Academic Libraries

“…Blake et al (2016) provided evidence of face validity, item validity, and construct validity within their study; Huang et al (2015) demonstrated testing for face validity and construct validity; and Masrek and Gaskin (2016) also showed evidence of a combination of face validity and construct validity. Blake et al changed their survey "to reflect the responses received from librarian reviews and campus interview sessions," and consulted instrument development experts who helped them address content (item) and internal structure (construct) validity components (p. 227).…”

“…Respondents were asked to consider aspects of librarian behaviour such as approachability and responsiveness, helpfulness, respect for confidentiality, and offering referrals; and aspects of librarian performance such as ability, accuracy, knowledge, and inspiring confidence. Five instruments (Blake et al, 2016;Butler & Byrd, 2016;Huang, Pu, Chen, & Chiu, 2015;Jacoby et al, 2016;Luo & Buer, 2015) asked students to gauge their likeliness to use, re-use, or recommend the service. Masrek and Gaskin reported presenting respondents with 10 items about Service quality, usefulness, and satisfaction (p. 42) but unfortunately did not provide the full text of the items within their article, making it impossible to determine how they conceptualized these elements of satisfaction.…”

“…" Yan, et al (2015) were not clear, as it seemed they gave their scale two midpoint labels, "Neutral" and "Not Familiar." Most 5-point scales had a midpoint labeled "Neutral" (Askew, 2015;Blevins, et al, 2016;Boyce, 2015;Huang et al, 2015;Mohindra & Kumar, 2015) or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" (Jacoby et al, 2016;Masrek & Gaskin, 2016). Three authors did not report the label used for their midpoint (Chen, 2016;Ganaie, 2016;Swoger & Hoffman, 2015).…”

“…Most (83%) of the studies did not state if they had tested their instruments for reliability. Five articles (17%) (Chen, 2016;Dahan, et al, 2016;Huang et al, 2015;Masrek & Gaskin, 2016;Yan, et al, 2015) reported measurement of internal consistency for each component of the satisfaction construct when the component was measured by multiple scale items. All of the researchers used Cronbach's ɑ (alpha) test of internal consistency, in which a value of 0.70 is commonly believed to be a basic threshold of acceptable level (Nunnally, 1978).…”