Revisiting digital libraries quality: a multiple‐item scale approach

Abstract

Purpose -This paper aims to deepen the concept of service quality in digital libraries based on the analysis of the Digital Library Service Quality Model (adapted from Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Malhotra) and a multiple-item scale (dlQUAL scale) created to evaluate the quality and performance of service delivered by the Portuguese Digital Library Consortium as part of the Digital Library Integrated Evaluation Programme. Design/methodology/approach -The Digital Library Service Quality Model makes it possible to assess gaps between different levels based on a multiple-item scale to evaluate service quality, which was designed as a web survey. Considering the strategical groups (users, LIS professionals, library managers and top managers), the research team developed four different web-survey versions to evaluate the different gaps. In the first step of this study, they looked for measures validity. Findings -The scale proved good psychometric proprieties. This study also showed the usefulness of the Digital Library Service Quality Model to evaluate and analyze digital libraries' service quality. Practical implications -The scale is valid and useful to evaluate digital libraries' service quality and it can provide valuable performance information to digital libraries' decision-makers. Moreover, the Digital Library Service Quality Model is a useful instrument to check the critical points that are related to organizational deficiencies. If these gaps are regularly monitored, it is possible to implement adequate correction measures and improve service quality. Originality/value -This paper presents a Library Service Quality Model specifically designed to evaluate digital libraries.

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

“…A sample size of 301–400 was reported in 13 studies (16.04%), whereas sample sizes of 101–200 and 201–300 were reported in 11 studies (13.58%) each. Seventy-seven is the smallest sample size reported by Helena Vinagre et al (2011), while 5914 is the largest sample size reported by Lane et al (2012).…”

Evaluating digital libraries: a systematised review

“…As Figure suggests, the majority of studies were focused on evaluating the quality of digital libraries’ services from the perspective of the users (Ahmad & Abawajy, ; Amannollahi‐Nik, Alipoorhafezi & Matlabi, ; Amini, ; Garibay, Gutiérrez & Figueroa, ; Helena Vinagre, Gaspar Pinto & Ochôa, ; Jafar‐Begloo, Hamidi, Anvari & Rouhani, ; Kyrillidou & Giersch, ; Lai, Chiu, Huang, Chen & Huang, ; Moreira, Gonçalves, Laender & Fox, ; Naiej, Noroozi & Hamidi, ; Sohrabi, Farzaneh & Reisi, ; Yousefzadeh‐Najdi, ). The second most frequent focus of research was on digital libraries as a whole (including analysing the various aspects of digital libraries) (Al‐Dini, ; Cemal, Doğan, Özlem & Sacit, ; Fuhr et al., ; Górny, Catlow & Mazurek, ; Hoe‐Lian Goh et al., ; Jose, ; Masoudnia & Ali‐Ebadi, ; Tripathi & Jeevan, ; Xie, , ).…”