Review of the current gap between clients’ expectations and perceptions of received service in national library by using gap analysis model

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to measure service quality in a national library from users' views, based on gap analysis model by using the LibQUAL þ t tools. Design/methodology/approach -The study was done using a LibQUAL þ t survey. In this research, service quality has survived in three dimensions: Affect of Service, Information Control, and Library as Place in three levels -"minimum", "perceived levels of services" and "desired level". Statistical population of this research included all users (female and male) who use different parts of the National Library of Iran (NLAI) in the year 2010. Due to the high volume of population and time & budget restrictions, 332 people formed the sample size.Findings -Findings showed that from users' views, librarians could not meet minimum users' expectations except in some cases. Library resource quality in perceived level of service is less than their expectations minimum. In other words, library resources could not meet minimum expectation and there are more gaps until desired level. Library as Place dimension has more quality than the two other dimensions, but NLAI place quality in perceived level is less than users' expectation minimum. Of course there is a little gap with perceived level in this dimension. Practical implications -The similarity in some results of LibQUAL þ t in academic libraries and national library implies that perhaps LibQUAL þ t tool is applicable for measuring library services in different type of libraries. Originality/value -Using the LibQUAL þ t Survey has helped the national library in Iran to better serve its main user groups and showed that the translated and domesticated version of LibQUAL þ t can be reliably implemented in different type of libraries.

A systematic review of library service quality studies: Models, dimensions, research populations and methods

“…The gaps created by the relative ranking of the current perceived level to the minimal and optimal levels serve as the foundation for service quality analysis. Most of the studies measured three dimensions (library as place, affect of service and Information control) of LIBQUAL in Iran (Asemi et al, 2010;Biranvand and Akbar Khasseh, 2013;Ghaedi et al, 2020;Jabbari et al, 2021;Neshat and Dehghani, 2013;Pedramnia et al, 2012;Pourahmad et al, 2016), Malaysia (Afthanorhan et al, 2019(Afthanorhan et al, , 2020Choshaly and Mirabolghasemi, 2019) and university libraries in China (Ip and Wagner, 2020;Xi et al, 2016;Wang et al, 2021;Xi et al, 2016).…”

“…Initially, the size, variety and diversity of the library’s collection, the amount of money spent on progressing the collection, the number of staff, and registered users were used to measure the library’s quality, but these factors are more quantitative in nature than qualitative. For qualitative analysis, library professionals have developed or implemented a variety of quality measurement instruments, including Total Quality Management (TQM) (Reddy, 2017), SERVQUAL (Das and Handique, 2020; Hossain Shoeb, 2011; Jaber Hossain and Islam, 2012; Shoeb, 2010; Suresh and Mohan, 2015; Trivedi and Bhatt, 2019), LibQUAL (Biranvand and Akbar Khasseh, 2013; Ip and Wagner, 2020; Killick et al, 2014; Ghaedi et al, 2020; Jabbari et al, 2021; Neshat and Dehghani, 2013; Pedramnia et al, 2012; Pourahmad et al, 2016; Wang et al, 2021; Xi et al, 2016, Killick et al, 2014, Roy et al, 2012, Thompson and Cook, 2003, Sajna and Mohamed Haneefa, 2016), SERVPERF (Silva et al, 2017) and WEBQUAL (Madhusudhan and Nagabhushanam, 2012; Mirghafoori et al, 2020; Wu et al, 2013). The service quality measurement models were initially developed in a commercial setting and were subsequently adopted by academic libraries.…”

Library's quality impact on satisfaction and improvement priorities

“…LibQUAL + assesses three levels of service: the minimum, the expected and the perceived level of service. The gaps between each pair of service levels are analyzed to determine library service quality (Kumar and Mahajan, 2019; Kyrillidou and Persson, 2006; Neshat and Dehghani, 2013; Shoeb and Ahmed, 2021; Voorbij, 2012).…”

A meta-analysis of service quality of Iranian university libraries based on the LibQUAL model

“…This tool has been used widely in the libraries of 31 different countries all around the 5 continents and it has been translated into 21 various languages (Town, 2016). According to the results obtained from studies focused on this method, which have been conducted over the past few years, has been an adequate model for measuring the quality of library services (Isfandyari-Moghaddam et al, 2013;Neshat and Dehghani, 2013). This model aims (Association of Research Libraries, 2017):…”

“…Over the past two decades, the LibQUAL model has been used in the universities of Iran for measuring the quality of library services. This tool can be used as a model for assessing the quality of libraries services as well as for presenting information which can be used for facilitating the improvement of targeted services in libraries of Iranian universities (Isfandyari-Moghaddam et al, 2013;Neshat and Dehghani, 2013).…”