So which score on the LibQual+™ tells me if library users are satisfied?

University Rankings: How Well Do They Measure Library Service Quality?

“…If relationships exist between rankings and LibQUAL+ TM results, the use of these three scores should indicate if those relationships reflect user satisfaction (perceived scores) or the degree to which libraries meet users' expectations (adequacy and superiority) of library service quality. 27 This is an important consideration because some factors, such as library size, may have an impact on both rank and user expectations. 28 Because both ranks and LibQUAL+ TM scores are ordinal types of data, Spearman's rank order correlation coefficient (Spearman's rho) was selected as the best measure of correlation between the variables.…”

“…By measuring users' minimum acceptable level of service quality, perceived or actual level of service quality, and desired or ideal level of service quality, LibQUAL+™ generates gap scores that measure both the degree to which perceived service meets minimum standards (adequacy gap) and the degree to which perceived service meets desired levels (superiority gap). While the effectiveness of gap scores in measuring satisfaction has been questioned, 2 LibQUAL+™ offers the benefits of relative ease of implementation, comprehensiveness, reliability, and stable comparisons across time and institutions. The LibQUAL+™ Canada consortium, which provides Canadian libraries the option of running the survey simultaneously with other institutions in Canada, has been formed on a triennial basis since 2007.…”

An independent assessment of the unidimensionality, reliability, validity and factor structure of the LibQUAL+™ scale

“…We noted the general criticisms regarding gap scores in service-quality measurement (Carman, 1990;Carrilat, Jaramillo, & Mulki, 2007;Teas, 1994) and the specific criticisms of the perceived minus minimum/desired expectations used by LibQUAL+ TM (Roszkowski et al, 2005). As a result, we decided to measure library service quality using 'performance-only' items (that is, the perceived section scores rather than the gap scores) taken directly from the 2004 version of the LibQUAL+ TM scale.…”

“…Sixthly, some results suggested that the perceived score (a 'performance-only' measure) might be a better predictor of service quality than the commonly used 'gap score' (Ladhari, 2009;Roszkowski, Baky, & Jones, 2005). Also, the use of performance-only scores reduces the number of items required in any survey (Cronin & Taylor, 1992;Harrison-Walker, 2002).…”

The Suitability of Web Analytics Key Performance Indicators in the Academic Library Environment

“…Little research has been conducted on the validity of the "gap scores" generated by the difference between the minimum and desired service levels. One study found the perceived service performance scores to be better predictions of satisfaction with library services than gap scores (Roszkowski, Baky, & Jones, 2005). 4 Until more research is conducted related to gap scores, when one is interested in perceptions of library service quality, it may be prudent to use "perceived" scores.…”