Using SEM and TCM to Improve Services to Libraries: A Comparative Study on Chinese Academic Libraries

Yan, Weiwei; Yuan, Hang; Changping, Hu

doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.07.006

Cited by 3 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three (10%) of these scales did not have the traditional neutral midpoint. Two (7%) of the scales offered three positive scores versus two negative (Sivagnanam & Esmail, 2015;Xie & Sun, 2015); the third scale was recoded by its developers to have three negative scores and two positive (Yan et al, 2015). Similarly, researchers employing 3-point scales did not always include a midpoint; three studies (Butler & Byrd, 2016;Ekere, Omekwu, & Nwoha, 2016;Yap & Cajes, 2016) offered two positive options and one negative.…”

Section: Q1: How Did Lis Researchers Gather Data On Patron Satisfactimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sivagnanam and Esmail (2015) labeled their scale points "Not Satisfied," "Not Much Satisfied," "Particularly Satisfied," "Fairly Satisfied," "Absolutely Satisfied. " 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).…”

Section: Q1: How Did Lis Researchers Gather Data On Patron Satisfactimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two studies (7%) addressed construct validity alone. Yan et al (2015) determined the value of average variance extracted (AVE) to demonstrate convergent validity of the constructs in their instrument, and reported that "all of the AVE values range from 0.6727 to 0.8019" (p. 562), and considered these values satisfactory citing Fornell and Larcker's 1981 publication in which 0.5 is the threshold value for AVE. While not specifically using the term "divergent validity," Yan et al demonstrated that they identified divergent variables, stating that "Six variables ... are dropped due to their relatively low factor loadings for its construct" (p. 562).…”

Section: Construct Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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).…”

Section: Reliability Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chen (2016) reported ɑ values ranging from 0.7305 to 0.8020, which represented a "satisfactory level of reliability" (p. 322). Dahan et al (2016) Yan, et al (2015) did not report separate values for each factor, stating that "Cronbach's alphas of all factors exceed 0.8" (p. 562).…”

Section: Reliability Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Senior¹,

Ward²

2019

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract Objective – The objective of this review was to examine research instrument characteristics, and to examine the validity and reliability of research instruments developed by practicing librarians, which measure the construct of patron satisfaction with academic library reference services. The authors were also interested in the extent to which instruments could be reused Methods – Authors searched three major library and information science databases: Library and Information Science Technology Abstracts (LISTA); Library Science Database (LD); and Library Literature & Information Science Index. Other databases searched were Current Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); Education Resources Information Center (ERIC); Google Scholar; PubMed; and Web of Science. The authors identified studies of patron satisfaction with academic library reference services in which the researcher(s) developed an instrument to study the satisfaction construct. In this rapid-review study, the studies were from 2015 and 2016 only. All retrieved studies were examined for evidence of validity and reliability as primary indicators of instrument quality, and data was extracted for country of study, research design, mode of reference service, data collection method, types of questions, number of items related to satisfaction, and content of items representing the satisfaction construct. Instrument reusability was also determined. Results – At the end of the screening stage of the review, a total of 29 instruments were examined. Nearly all studies were quantitative or mixed quantitative/qualitative in design. Twenty-six (90%) of the studies employed surveys alone to gather data. Twelve publications (41%) included a discussion of any type of validity; five (17%) included discussion of any type of reliability. Three articles (10%) demonstrated more than one type of validity evidence. Nine articles (31%) included the instrument in full in an appendix, and eight instruments (28%) were not appended but were described adequately so as to be reusable. Conclusions – This review identified a range of quality in librarians’ research instruments for evaluating satisfaction with reference services. We encourage librarians to perform similar reviews to locate the highest-quality instrument on which to model their own, thereby increasing the rigor of Library and Information Science (LIS) research in general. This study shows that even a two-year rapid review is sufficient to locate a large quantity of research instruments to assist librarians in developing instruments.

show abstract

Section: Q1: How Did Lis Researchers Gather Data On Patron Satisfactimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Q1: How Did Lis Researchers Gather Data On Patron Satisfactimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Construct Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reliability Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reliability Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Senior¹,

Ward²

2019

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A combined fuzzy‐SEM evaluation approach to identify the key drivers of the academic library service quality in the digital technology era: An empirical study

Fata

Lupo

2017

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A conceptual model of the Academic Library (AL) service quality is hypothesized in the present article, and then validated and analyzed by a novel evaluation approach. Specifically, the conceptual model integrates the fundamental attributes of the canonical AL service together with those more relevant of the new and widely considered AL Electronic Service (e‐services). As concerns the evaluation approach, it incorporates the Fuzzy Sets Theory (FST) so as to deal with the students' uncertainty over their own judgments on the AL service quality and a Structural Equation Model (SEM) to validate the conceptual model and to determine the key drivers of the AL service quality. The effectiveness of the proposed approach is proved by an empirical study concerning the AL of the Polytechnic School of the University of Palermo (Italy). Data collected via a survey involving more than 600 students are used, and the key drivers of the AL service quality are found out. Particularly, the obtained results reveal that Collections and materials represents the main driver of the AL service quality followed by Infrastructure and Access to the service, whereas Staff plays the fundamental role of interface between AL service aspects and students' needs and necessities.

show abstract

Unveiling the research pattern and trends in library service quality studies: A meta-narrative review

Vaidya

Malik

Ali

2021

Journal of Librarianship and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

‘Service Quality’ and its influence in Library and Information Science discipline are spectacular when studied intensively. In this study, researchers adopted the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards review method and introduced a novel Initialization, Conceptualization, Actualisation) (ICA) framework for meta-narrative studies. This method would act as a boon particularly to the existing methods of conducting meta-narrative studies in social sciences in general and library sciences in particular. A total of 49 research articles were selected from Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases, covering a span of 5 years, that is, 2015–2019, published in the domain of library service quality. An extensive in-depth analysis of selected publications was carried out under seven categories (i.e. library, library services, quality, ServQUAL, LibQUAL+, user satisfaction and users’ expectations), which were generated using the VOS-Viewer software and ‘Review Tags’ (manually generated using OneNote). The seven categories further identify a total of 27 sub-categories. The quantitative findings revealed that all the 49 reviewed publications were published in 27 journals. All the journals have been indexed in the Scopus database, whereas 15 journals containing the remaining 22 publications are indexed in both WoS and Scopus databases. This study unfolds a transverse trend in library service quality. It would be beneficial for the library managers to sustain libraries’ service quality and set a benchmark in the said field.

show abstract

Using SEM and TCM to Improve Services to Libraries: A Comparative Study on Chinese Academic Libraries

Cited by 3 publications

References 49 publications

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

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

A combined fuzzy‐SEM evaluation approach to identify the key drivers of the academic library service quality in the digital technology era: An empirical study

Unveiling the research pattern and trends in library service quality studies: A meta-narrative review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About