An Exploratory Study of Service Quality at the
Cyrenius H. Booth Library Circulation Desks
1.0 Title of Study
An Exploratory Study of Service Quality at the Cyrenius H. Booth Library Circulation Desks in Newtown, Connecticut.
2.0 Introduction and Overview
All public libraries want to provide their patrons with a great library experience, one that will serve the needs of the patron, and promote customer loyalty and support. To achieve this goal, libraries purchase best sellers, maintain useful databases, stay up-to-date with technology and provide services that support the information and entertainment needs of their users. Still, satisfying the high expectations of the modern day user is a challenge, particularly in this fiscally restrictive period, a time when budgets are shrinking, and operating costs are soaring. To meet this challenge, public libraries need to be certain that they are providing excellent customer service in addition to having the best books and databases. A competent and knowledgeable staff is critical to a great library experience, and can do more to create goodwill in the community than having the most current technology. To meet and exceed these needs a library must consistently make sure the customers’ expectations correlate closely with their experiences. For the purpose of this study, this connection between expectation and experience will be defined by the business term, “service quality”.
Service quality is comprised of both tangible and intangible characteristics that are frequently associated with customer service. Service quality includes tangibles such as a physically attractive space with nice lighting and comfortable seating. Materials need to be relevant and up-to-date and equipment such as computers, printers and copiers in good working order and easy to use. Safety is also of paramount importance; users must feel secure using the equipment and know that their records are kept confidential. Other intangible service quality characteristics while less visible, are no less important. Service should be reliable, prompt, and competent. The service provider should also be considerate, honest and communicate well in a language the library user can readily understand. Finally, service quality involves accessibility, meaning the staff member makes every effort to be available to the user, to know the user and meet their specific needs.
A library that focuses on high service quality works at narrowing the gap between customer expectations and customer experience. However because service quality involves user perceptions, it is not always easy to measure or understand, particularly when it involves the less tangible dimensions. A broken light in the stairwell can be seen as a safety risk, with an actionable solution. However, a quick response on the phone can be interpreted in several ways. Was the staff member rude, distracted, or simply efficient in providing the needed information? It is the user’s perception of the exchange that matters.
Libraries need to analyze and evaluate their customer service quality on an ongoing basis to see that they are meeting the needs of their users. The Cyrenius H. Booth Library has not surveyed their user population for more than fifteen years and is now interested in learning from their patrons; both what they are doing well and what they can do better. This study will focus specifically on users’ views of the more intangible components of service quality: reliability, responsiveness, competence and empathy of the staff. Assessing how well a library delivers service to their patrons is the first important step in identifying potential problems, leading to solutions that will improve services and therefore increase customer satisfaction. The best way to learn about service quality is by getting direct user feedback.
2.1 Host Agency
The Cyrenius H. Booth Library will facilitate this research under the supervision of Director Janet Woycik. This library located in western Connecticut is a public library serving the community of Newtown. Newtown is an extremely homogeneous town with a population of 25,031 reported in the last census, 95.1% of them white (AmericanTowns.com, 2011). The median age is 37.5 with 30% of the population under the age of 18 and 8.7% of the population over the age of 65, making Newtown home to a slightly younger group of people than the national average (AmericanTowns.com, 2011). The breakdown for the remaining 4.9 % of the Newtown community describes themselves as 1.7% black, .16% American Indian, 1.47% Asian and 2.4% Hispanic. 7.9% of the population describe themselves as foreign born and speak a language other than English at home. 92.8% of Newtowners have a high school degree and 69% are in the labor force either full or part time (AmericanTowns.com, 2011).
The Cyrenius H. Booth Library is a quasi-town agency with a staff of 40; nine full time librarians have MLS degrees while two part time employees hold advanced degrees. Twenty members of the staff are adults and fifteen are student pages who work evening, weekend, and summer hours. The library director oversees the daily running of the library and she reports to the Library Board of Trustees, a committee of eighteen responsible for creating policy (Cyrenius H. Booth Library annual Report, 2011).
The Cyrenius H. Booth Library currently staffs three circulation desks on three different floors. Primarily paraprofessionals and high school pages staff the main circulation desk and are responsible for checking materials in and out for patrons. Both professionals and paraprofessionals staff the circulation desks in the children’s and reference department. During evening hours and on weekends staff is almost exclusively comprised of high school students and paraprofessionals.
2.2 Significance and Relevance
The purpose of the study is to measure the current service quality at the Cyrenius H. Booth Library. Is the staff knowledgeable, friendly and courteous when interacting with the public? Are they approachable, informative and easy to understand? What can the staff do to improve the library experience for everyone who visits the library?
Learning the answers to these questions will generate important information on customer service at the Cyrenius H. Booth Library. It will provide the library director, the library staff and the Board of Trustees with a better understanding of how the public views their current library experience, specifically as it relates to service quality. Patrons will also benefit from the study, as it will give them an opportunity to make suggestions on how to improve services as well as interactions with library staff. This study may also have broader appeal and value for other public libraries, who want to perform their own surveys, to better assess service quality at their own circulation desks.
Conducting this project will also provide the author with valuable insights and a deeper understanding of customer service, assisting her in her professional goals of improving the relationship between the library and the population it serves.
2.3 Research Questions
Service quality is a measure of how well the library performs in meeting the expectations of the library user. Therefore, the survey instrument has been designed to answer the following questions.
· What is Cyrenius H. Booth Library doing well when it comes to customer service?
· What can Cyrenius H. Booth Library do better when it comes to customer service?
· What is the most important service quality component as identified by Cyrenius H. Booth Library patrons?
§ Is it reliability, responsiveness, assurance, or empathy of the staff?
§ Or, is it a more tangible quality such as the physical building or library materials?
3.0 Literary Review
The role of the modern public library has undergone a monumental change over the last several decades. No longer just a depository for reference materials, it is now more than ever a community center providing important resources for education, entertainment and recreation. An even bigger change in public libraries is the relationship between library users and the library as an institution. Public libraries have embraced a retail model of customer service, where the goal is to not only meet, but to exceed the needs of the customer (Pellack, 2012). The library’s mission to serve its users influences not only what services are provided but also how they will be offered (Hernon & Nitecki, 2001).
Hernon & Nitecki (2001) found that there are several reasons why libraries should be especially interested in analyzing the service quality they are providing. Libraries who ask for customer feedback are more likely to create a more loyal user base, especially if they can show that they value their customers’ opinions by acting on the customer suggestions and recommendations. It is also important that they constantly review services and recognize that needs may change over time. To maintain a competitive edge, libraries need to ask how they can best serve their current population (Hernon & Nitecki, 2001).
Understanding what library patrons want is the key to providing excellent service, and is of utmost concern for all librarians whether they work in an academic, public or special library. The bulk of published studies on service quality pertain to academic libraries in large part because they are institutions that are constantly assessing how to improve customer satisfaction. The academic library studies’ findings are applicable and valuable for the public library, yet they would benefit even more in soliciting customer feedback from their own library users. Hernon & Nitecki (2001) report that feedback provides not only information but also communication between the library and the customer. When used correctly, a survey can be a powerful public relations tool. Listening to customers, who are the best judges of library performance, will have the greatest value (Balas, 2011).
Almost all literature reviewed for the service quality study at Cyrenius H. Booth Library employed the SERVQUAL instrument in their research. SERVQUAL was developed in the mid 1980s by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, and is used most frequently to measure service quality in an academic library setting. Although SERVQUAL has been found to be an imperfect instrument by some (Landrum, 1999), it will continue to be popular until a more effective study instrument is developped (Broady-Preston, 2002; Hiller, 2001; Shahin, 2006; Westbrook, 2001).
The SERVQUAL model measures the “perceived quality” rather than the “objective quality” and uses gap analysis to better understand the relationship between service quality and user satisfaction (Cullen, 2001). In their 1988 report, Parasuraman, et al. identify the main dimensions necessary to deliver high service quality that will lead to satisfied customers. When customers do not receive the service they expect this leads to ‘gaps’; the greater the gap, the unhappier the customer (Coleman, Xiao, Bair, & Chollett, 1997; Parasuraman, Zeithamal, & Berry, 1988, 1994; Shahin, 2006). The key dimensions of service quality: reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy, and physical appearance of the building and materials have been tested frequently in academic and public libraries using methodologies based on the SERVQUAL instrument (Roy, Khare, Liu, Hawkes, & Swiatek-Kelley, 2012).
Of the five service quality assets there is fairly consistent agreement among the researchers as to which is most important. The Sterling C. Evans Library study at Texas A&M University (Coleman, et al.,1997) found that reliability and responsiveness ranked as the most important service quality dimensions among their respondents. These survey results are similar to those reported by Cullen (2001) where responsiveness topped the list, and also the findings published by Roy et al. (2012) at Quinnipiac University where staff attributes (reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy) were first. Roy et al. (2012) identifies these attributes as the most difficult dimension to measure, but also the most important factors in determining overall customer satisfaction.
A user survey provides relevant information to library administration and other decision makers who do not always have direct contact with the public. However, a user survey also communicates important information to frontline staff who feel they already do know what customer service qualities are valued by the public. Anecdotal information has been proven at times to be misleading and inaccurate whereas a more evidence based approach involving surveys and focus groups provides a more realistic relationship between user satisfaction and service quality (Nagata & Klopfer, 2010; Schuerlein & Strobel, 2011). Cullen reported in 2001 that library staff “see their services as inherently desirable and blame customer ignorance or lack of motivation when their services aren’t used. Gap between what librarians think users want and what users actually want and expect has proven to be significant (p. 680).” To avoid staff bias surveys make the need for user-input critical. The University of California at San Diego user survey project reported on by Talbot, Lowell, and Martin (1998) designed an instrument that employed user input to develop survey questions. While this ultimately added a lot more time and expense to the project the researchers were satisfied with the results and a follow-up survey showed a spike in overall customer satisfaction (Talbot, et al. 1998).
Library users have been found to have similar expectations of customer service worldwide. A comparative study between Australian (Deakin University) and British (Nottingham-Trent University) academic users found that both of these groups have similar expectations McKnight, 2008). The study employed customer discovery workshops, a methodology similar to focus groups. Participants were asked to identify and rate irritants and issues they had with the current system, reporting them in a workbook, so as to avoid ‘group think’ and ‘one upmanship’ (McKnight, 2008). Because there are no set questions, unlike surveys, participants are more likely to give their true impressions. Findings from this study indicate that the customer discovery workshops did not focus on library staff qualities although participants did want library staff to be competent and knowledgeable. These findings correlate well to findings previously discussed using a survey instrument. Customer discovery workshops provided a general overall impression of library staff characteristics without providing information on distinct attributes. Overall surveys provide more in-depth information in this area.
The study performed by Calvert (2001) supports the use of an anonymous survey rather than focus groups to learn about customer expectations of staff attributes. Two unidentified universities in China and one in New Zealand (University of Wellington) conducted surveys based on the SERVQUAL model that were carefully constructed to avoid translation issues. Comparisons of the two studies confirmed that both populations of academic library customers ranked aspects of customer service in a very similar order of importance with staff reliability and responsiveness continually ranking first. Calvert’s findings (2001) show that library users consistently value the same aspects in service quality, and that these values are not culturally dependent.
Values however do change over time and what was considered ‘value added’ a few years back is now expected (Balas, 2011). Wi-Fi and e-content are two examples of services that used to impress and now are expected. Competent staff that understands how to help a patron with computer issues likewise used to be considered service that was above and beyond. Now staff that does not have a good grasp on IT issues may be considered less competent. The ever-changing expectations of the library user require that assessments be scheduled on an ongoing basis (Broady-Preston, 2002). User feedback provides information that is current and relevant but also is an effective promotional tool when acted upon. Listening to patrons is important, but unless you do something constructive with the data you have collected you are not delivering customer satisfaction (McKnight, 619).
Understanding which components of service quality Cyrenius H. Booth Library users’ value most will lead to improved customer service and an increase in customer satisfaction. This study intends to provide the library administration with useful evidence-based data that will help with staff development and hiring. The library is at the center of the Newtown community and is much appreciated by its current user base but expanding the base and improving on perceived weaknesses will further improve the library’s image and help the library remain relevant in these ever-changing times.
4.0 Research Methods and Plans for Conducting the Project
This study will employ an anonymous self-directed survey targeting current Cyrenius H. Booth Library users. The focus of the study will be on library user perceptions and attitudes regarding customer service, with a special focus on staff performance at the circulation desks. The survey is targeting library users ages 18-99 but younger library users’ opinions are also valued, and they will also be welcome to complete the survey.
Publicity about the survey will be published in the local paper, The Newtown Bee, and on the Cyrenius H. Booth website. Flyers will also be posted on bulletin boards around the library inviting patrons to participate. An e-blast will be sent to all patrons that have subscribed to the library email service. Staff members at the three circulation desks will inform the public about the customer satisfaction survey currently being conducted at the library; however no one will be pressured or coerced into filling out a survey and no staff will be involved in the collection of completed surveys.
The survey will be distributed both in print and electronically. The electronic version will be available on the library website at chboothlibrary.org and via a Constant Contact e-blast, which will be sent to all Cyrenius H. Booth Library email subscribers. Paper copies will be available at the three circulation desks for patrons preferring a non-electronic method. Clearly marked and secure ballot style boxes will be made available near the survey forms. A representative from You.Gov, a global market research firm in Waterbury Connecticut, will be collecting all of the paper copies as well as the electronic versions. They will also be hosting the survey. The survey will run for three weeks and the expected return numbers are in the 200-250 range.
Tabulation of the survey results will be conducted at the conclusion of the three-week period. A quantitative analysis will be employed and made available in a written report to the Director of the library. It will also be shared with library staff and library trustees. The author will also be available to present findings to any interested library trustees or staff. The expectation is that the results will provide important information regarding customer satisfaction at the Cyrenius H. Booth Library, giving library staff a clearer picture and empirical evidence on how they are perceived by library users. This information can be used to improve customer service and provide action oriented feedback on how to enhance the customer experience. The survey results will also be helpful in providing better staff development of existing staff as well as improve training modules for new hires.
4.1 Ethics Governing the Project
This research is committed to protecting the rights and welfare of human participants involved in research that is conducted on the campus or in cooperation with other research agencies, regardless of whether or not this project is funded externally, internally or receives no funding support. This research subscribes to the basic ethical principles for the protection of human subjects of research that underlie The Nuremberg Codes, The Helsinki Declaration, and the Southern Connecticut University Human Research Participant Protection System, Policies, Procedures and Guidelines Manual.
4.2 Author’s Qualifications
The author is a graduate student in the Department of Information and Library Science, and has completed 33 credits toward the Master of Library Science (MLS) degree, with the final three credits in progress. The author is currently enrolled in ILS 580 Research in Information and Library Science, the special project proposal course for the MLS program, under the direction of Dr. Yan Q. Liu, Professor and Graduate Faculty. The author successfully completed the NIH web-based training course Protecting Human Research Participants on 04/09/2012, certification number 902647, which may be viewed at http://phrp.nihtraining.com/users/cert/.php?c=901647. See also Appendix D.
The author has more than twenty years of experience working on the circulation desk in both public (Cyrenius H. Booth Library) and academic (Bates College and the University of California at Davis) libraries.
4.3 Human Subject (IRB) Protection
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Southern Connecticut State University has examined this proposal (#12-169) and considers it exempt from continuing IRB review. A copy of the letter may be found in Appendix C.
5.0 References
American Towns.com (2011). Newtown, Connecticut census data & community profile.
Retrieved October 5, 2012 from http://www.americantowns.com/ct/newtown.
Balas, J.L. (2011). In the public library, it’s all about the user. Information Today, 31(3).
Retrieved September 29, 2012 from EBSCOhost.
Bracke, M.S., Brewer, M., Huff-Eibl, R., Lee, D.R., Mitchell, R., & Ray, M. (2007). Finding
information in a new landscape: Developing new service and staffing models for mediated
information services. College & Research Libraries, 68(3). 248-266.
Broady-Preston, J., Steel, L. (2002). Employees, customer and internal marketing strategies in
LIS. Library Management, 23(8). 384-393.
Calvert, P.J. (2001). International variations in measuring customer expectations. Library
Trends, 49(4). 732-757.
Coleman, V., Xiao, Y., Bair, L., & Chollett, B. (1997).Toward a TQM paradigm: using
SERVQUAL to measure library service quality. College and Research Libraries, 58(3).
237-249. Retrieved September 15, 2012 from EBSCOhost.
Cyrenius H. Booth Library Annual Report -2010 (2010). Retrieved February 4, 2012 from
Documents/NewtownCT WebDocs/about
Cullen, R. (2001). Perspectives on user satisfaction surveys. Library Trends, 49(4) 662-686.
Hernon, P., & Nitecki, D. (2001) Service quality: A concept not fully explored. Library Trends,
49(4). 687-708
Hiller, S. (2001). Assessing user needs, satisfaction, and library performances at the University
of Washington Libraries. Library Trends, 49(4). 604-625.
Landrum, H. (1999). An analysis of the ability of an instrument to measure quality of library
service and library success. (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North
Texas. Retrieved on October 5, 2012 from
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:67531/metadc2245/m2/1/high_res_d/Dissertation.pdf
McKnight, S. (2008). Are there common academic library customer values? Library
Management, 29(6). 600-619.
Nagata, H., & Klopfer, L. (2010). Public library assessment in customer perspective: To which
customer group should the library listen? Library Management, 32(4/5). 336-345.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithamal, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multi-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of the service quality. Journal of Retailing, 69(1). 140-
147.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithamal, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994). Reassessment of expectations as a
comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research.
Journal of Marketing, 58(1). 111-124.
Pellack, L. (2012). Now serving customer 7,528,413. Reference & User Quarterly, 51(4). 316-
318.
Roy, A., Khare, A., Liu, B.S.C., Hawkes, L.M., & Swiatek-Kelley, J. (2012). An investigation of
affect of service using a LibQUAL+ survey and an experimental study. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 38(3) 153-160.
Schuerlein, G., & Strobel, T. (2011). Getting the most ROI from customer surveys. Public
Libraries, 50(1). 38-41.
Shahin, A. (2006). SERVQUAL and model of service gaps: a framework for determining and
prioritizing critical factors in delivering quality service.
Talbot, D. E., Lowell, G.R., & Martin, K. (1998). From the user’s perspective-the UCSD
Libraries User Survey Project. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 357-363.
Westbrook, L. (2001). Identifying and analyzing user needs. Neal Schuman, New York.
Appendix A: Cover Letter and Customer Service Survey for the
Cyrenius H. Booth Library
Dear Participant,
My name is Kim Weber and I am a graduate student in the Information and Library Science Department at Southern Connecticut State University. As part of the requirements to graduate, I must complete a special research project. I have chosen to conduct a customer service survey for the Cyrenius H. Booth Library about patron experiences with some of the library services.
The information from the survey will be used to improve customer service at the circulation desks and help us plan for the future. All information collected from this survey will remain confidential and anonymous. Completion of the attached survey is completely voluntary and you may withdraw from the survey at any time. Also please know that no library staff will be involved in collecting completed surveys.
The survey is made up of some simple short questions and should take about 10 minutes to complete. By choosing to continue with this survey, you are agreeing to the following statement:
Return of this survey indicates my consent to have my data used in this research.
Thank you for your participation and please don’t hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Kim Weber
Information and Library Science Graduate Student
Southern Connecticut State University
[email protected]
Appendix B: Customer Service Survey for the Cyrenius H. Booth Library
In order to serve the needs of our patrons, the Cyrenius H. Booth Library is seeking input from you on a variety of issues. Your opinion is very important to us and will help us plan for the future. The survey is made up of some simple questions and should take less than ten minutes to complete.
Thanks for your help.
1. How often do you visit the CH Booth Library?
□ More than once a week [SKIP TO Q #3]
□ Once a week [SKIP TO Q #3]
□ Once every two weeks
□ Once a month
□ Once every six months
□ Once a year
□ Never [ANSWER Q #2, THEN SKIP TO Q#13]
2. If you don’t use the library regularly, why not? (Check all that apply)
□ It doesn’t have the materials I need
□ I don’t have a library card
□ I buy my own books/magazines
□ I use my school/college library
□ I use a neighboring public library
□ I use the town library near to where I work
□ I don’t know what the library has to offer me
□ Other (specify)__________________________________________
3. I have taken advantage of the following services at the library. (Check all that apply)
□ To borrow best sellers
□ To get information for a school project
□ To borrow other fiction books
□ To attend children’s programs
□ To borrow nonfiction books
□ To use word processing computers
□ To get information/research
□ To borrow books on CD
□ To use the children’s area
□ To get income tax forms
□ To use the young adult area
□ To attend meetings/programs
□ To borrow DVDs
□ To use the copy machine
□ To attend teen programs
□ To read/borrow magazines
□ To meet friends/business associates
□ To use the public fax
□ To find a quiet place to work
□ To read newspapers
□ To use reference materials
□ To use the internet/Wi-Fi
□ To do job searches/databases
□ To borrow museum passes
□ Other
4. What are the top three reasons you visit the library?
□ To borrow best sellers
□ To get information for a school project
□ To borrow other fiction books
□ To attend children’s programs
□ To borrow nonfiction books
□ To use word processing computers
□ To get information/research
□ To borrow books on CD
□ To use the children’s area
□ To get income tax forms
□ To use the young adult area
□ To attend meetings/programs
□ To borrow DVDs
□ To use the copy machine
□ To attend teen programs
□ To read/borrow magazines
□ To meet friends/business associates
□ To use the public fax
□ To find a quiet place to work
□ To read newspapers
□ To use reference materials
□ To use the internet/Wi-Fi
□ To do job searches/databases
□ To borrow museum passes
□ Other □
5. Think back to the last time you visited the library. Did you find what you were looking for?
□ Yes [SKIP TO #7]
□ No
□ Partly
6. Check all statements below which explain why you did not get what you were looking for.
□ Item was checked out
□ Library did not own what I needed
□ I could not find the material
□ Staff could not find the material
□ Library computers were down
□ All computers were in use
□ Could not find item on shelf
□ Staff requested material through Interlibrary loan
□ Other (please specify)______________________________________________
7. Please think back to the last time you visited the library. Which, if any, of the following describes the service you received? (Check all that apply)
□ Staff was helpful & pleasant
□ Staff was considerate & thoughtful
□ Staff was knowledgeable
□ Staff was too busy to help
□ Staff took too long to help
□ Staff was discourteous & uncooperative
□ I did not need help or service the last time
8. For the next question, we’d like you to rate the importance of certain customer service aspects of the Cyrenius Booth library, on a scale of extremely important to not at all important. Please select one response for each of the following aspects.
Extremely Important
Very Important
Somewhat
important
Not Very Important
Not at all important
Prompt service to customers
Employees are courteous
Employees are caring
Employees understand customer needs
Have best interest of customer
Willingness to help
Customers informed about when services will be performed
Provide services as promised
Employees instill confidence in customers
Employees are able to answer customer questions
Readiness to respond to customer questions
Dependable in answering customer questions
Perform services right the first time
Visually appealing facilities
Provide individual attention
Employees have neat and professional appearance
Convenient library hours
Up to date technology
Transactions are accurate
9. Now please rate the Cyrenius Booth library itself on these same customer service aspects using the following scale of excellent to poor. Even if you have not experienced one of these situations, answer based on what your expectations would be. Please select one response for each of the following aspects.
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Prompt service to customers
Employees are courteous
Employees are caring
Employees understand customer needs
Have the best interest of the customer
Willingness to help customers
Keeps customers informed about when services will be performed
Provide services as promised
Employees instill confidence in customers
Employees have the knowledge to answer customer questions
Readiness to respond to customer questions
Dependable in answering customer questions
Perform services right the first time
Visually appealing facilities
Give customers individual attention
Employees have neat and professional appearance
Convenient library hours
Up to date technology
Transactions are accurate
10. Overall, how would you rate the Cyrenius H. Booth Library?
Check one response only.
□ Excellent
□ Very Good
□ Good
□ Fair
□ Poor
11. Would you recommend us to a friend?
□ Yes □ No
12. Why do you say that? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
These last few questions will only be used to help classify survey participants, your individual responses will never be reported.
13. Your gender
□ Male □ Female
14. Your age group
□ 11 and under □ 40 - 49
□ 12 -17 □ 50 - 59
□ 18 - 29 □ 60 - 69
□ 30 - 39 □ 70 - 79
□ 80 and older
15. Your education level
□ Some high school or less
□ High school graduate
□ Vocational/Technical school
□ Some college
□ College graduate
□ Graduate degree(s)
Appendix C: IRB Exemption Letter
Appendix D: NIH Certificate of Completion for
Protecting Human Research Participants
Appendix E: Permission Letter for Host Agency
Cyrenius H. Booth Library Circulation Desks
1.0 Title of Study
An Exploratory Study of Service Quality at the Cyrenius H. Booth Library Circulation Desks in Newtown, Connecticut.
2.0 Introduction and Overview
All public libraries want to provide their patrons with a great library experience, one that will serve the needs of the patron, and promote customer loyalty and support. To achieve this goal, libraries purchase best sellers, maintain useful databases, stay up-to-date with technology and provide services that support the information and entertainment needs of their users. Still, satisfying the high expectations of the modern day user is a challenge, particularly in this fiscally restrictive period, a time when budgets are shrinking, and operating costs are soaring. To meet this challenge, public libraries need to be certain that they are providing excellent customer service in addition to having the best books and databases. A competent and knowledgeable staff is critical to a great library experience, and can do more to create goodwill in the community than having the most current technology. To meet and exceed these needs a library must consistently make sure the customers’ expectations correlate closely with their experiences. For the purpose of this study, this connection between expectation and experience will be defined by the business term, “service quality”.
Service quality is comprised of both tangible and intangible characteristics that are frequently associated with customer service. Service quality includes tangibles such as a physically attractive space with nice lighting and comfortable seating. Materials need to be relevant and up-to-date and equipment such as computers, printers and copiers in good working order and easy to use. Safety is also of paramount importance; users must feel secure using the equipment and know that their records are kept confidential. Other intangible service quality characteristics while less visible, are no less important. Service should be reliable, prompt, and competent. The service provider should also be considerate, honest and communicate well in a language the library user can readily understand. Finally, service quality involves accessibility, meaning the staff member makes every effort to be available to the user, to know the user and meet their specific needs.
A library that focuses on high service quality works at narrowing the gap between customer expectations and customer experience. However because service quality involves user perceptions, it is not always easy to measure or understand, particularly when it involves the less tangible dimensions. A broken light in the stairwell can be seen as a safety risk, with an actionable solution. However, a quick response on the phone can be interpreted in several ways. Was the staff member rude, distracted, or simply efficient in providing the needed information? It is the user’s perception of the exchange that matters.
Libraries need to analyze and evaluate their customer service quality on an ongoing basis to see that they are meeting the needs of their users. The Cyrenius H. Booth Library has not surveyed their user population for more than fifteen years and is now interested in learning from their patrons; both what they are doing well and what they can do better. This study will focus specifically on users’ views of the more intangible components of service quality: reliability, responsiveness, competence and empathy of the staff. Assessing how well a library delivers service to their patrons is the first important step in identifying potential problems, leading to solutions that will improve services and therefore increase customer satisfaction. The best way to learn about service quality is by getting direct user feedback.
2.1 Host Agency
The Cyrenius H. Booth Library will facilitate this research under the supervision of Director Janet Woycik. This library located in western Connecticut is a public library serving the community of Newtown. Newtown is an extremely homogeneous town with a population of 25,031 reported in the last census, 95.1% of them white (AmericanTowns.com, 2011). The median age is 37.5 with 30% of the population under the age of 18 and 8.7% of the population over the age of 65, making Newtown home to a slightly younger group of people than the national average (AmericanTowns.com, 2011). The breakdown for the remaining 4.9 % of the Newtown community describes themselves as 1.7% black, .16% American Indian, 1.47% Asian and 2.4% Hispanic. 7.9% of the population describe themselves as foreign born and speak a language other than English at home. 92.8% of Newtowners have a high school degree and 69% are in the labor force either full or part time (AmericanTowns.com, 2011).
The Cyrenius H. Booth Library is a quasi-town agency with a staff of 40; nine full time librarians have MLS degrees while two part time employees hold advanced degrees. Twenty members of the staff are adults and fifteen are student pages who work evening, weekend, and summer hours. The library director oversees the daily running of the library and she reports to the Library Board of Trustees, a committee of eighteen responsible for creating policy (Cyrenius H. Booth Library annual Report, 2011).
The Cyrenius H. Booth Library currently staffs three circulation desks on three different floors. Primarily paraprofessionals and high school pages staff the main circulation desk and are responsible for checking materials in and out for patrons. Both professionals and paraprofessionals staff the circulation desks in the children’s and reference department. During evening hours and on weekends staff is almost exclusively comprised of high school students and paraprofessionals.
2.2 Significance and Relevance
The purpose of the study is to measure the current service quality at the Cyrenius H. Booth Library. Is the staff knowledgeable, friendly and courteous when interacting with the public? Are they approachable, informative and easy to understand? What can the staff do to improve the library experience for everyone who visits the library?
Learning the answers to these questions will generate important information on customer service at the Cyrenius H. Booth Library. It will provide the library director, the library staff and the Board of Trustees with a better understanding of how the public views their current library experience, specifically as it relates to service quality. Patrons will also benefit from the study, as it will give them an opportunity to make suggestions on how to improve services as well as interactions with library staff. This study may also have broader appeal and value for other public libraries, who want to perform their own surveys, to better assess service quality at their own circulation desks.
Conducting this project will also provide the author with valuable insights and a deeper understanding of customer service, assisting her in her professional goals of improving the relationship between the library and the population it serves.
2.3 Research Questions
Service quality is a measure of how well the library performs in meeting the expectations of the library user. Therefore, the survey instrument has been designed to answer the following questions.
· What is Cyrenius H. Booth Library doing well when it comes to customer service?
· What can Cyrenius H. Booth Library do better when it comes to customer service?
· What is the most important service quality component as identified by Cyrenius H. Booth Library patrons?
§ Is it reliability, responsiveness, assurance, or empathy of the staff?
§ Or, is it a more tangible quality such as the physical building or library materials?
3.0 Literary Review
The role of the modern public library has undergone a monumental change over the last several decades. No longer just a depository for reference materials, it is now more than ever a community center providing important resources for education, entertainment and recreation. An even bigger change in public libraries is the relationship between library users and the library as an institution. Public libraries have embraced a retail model of customer service, where the goal is to not only meet, but to exceed the needs of the customer (Pellack, 2012). The library’s mission to serve its users influences not only what services are provided but also how they will be offered (Hernon & Nitecki, 2001).
Hernon & Nitecki (2001) found that there are several reasons why libraries should be especially interested in analyzing the service quality they are providing. Libraries who ask for customer feedback are more likely to create a more loyal user base, especially if they can show that they value their customers’ opinions by acting on the customer suggestions and recommendations. It is also important that they constantly review services and recognize that needs may change over time. To maintain a competitive edge, libraries need to ask how they can best serve their current population (Hernon & Nitecki, 2001).
Understanding what library patrons want is the key to providing excellent service, and is of utmost concern for all librarians whether they work in an academic, public or special library. The bulk of published studies on service quality pertain to academic libraries in large part because they are institutions that are constantly assessing how to improve customer satisfaction. The academic library studies’ findings are applicable and valuable for the public library, yet they would benefit even more in soliciting customer feedback from their own library users. Hernon & Nitecki (2001) report that feedback provides not only information but also communication between the library and the customer. When used correctly, a survey can be a powerful public relations tool. Listening to customers, who are the best judges of library performance, will have the greatest value (Balas, 2011).
Almost all literature reviewed for the service quality study at Cyrenius H. Booth Library employed the SERVQUAL instrument in their research. SERVQUAL was developed in the mid 1980s by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, and is used most frequently to measure service quality in an academic library setting. Although SERVQUAL has been found to be an imperfect instrument by some (Landrum, 1999), it will continue to be popular until a more effective study instrument is developped (Broady-Preston, 2002; Hiller, 2001; Shahin, 2006; Westbrook, 2001).
The SERVQUAL model measures the “perceived quality” rather than the “objective quality” and uses gap analysis to better understand the relationship between service quality and user satisfaction (Cullen, 2001). In their 1988 report, Parasuraman, et al. identify the main dimensions necessary to deliver high service quality that will lead to satisfied customers. When customers do not receive the service they expect this leads to ‘gaps’; the greater the gap, the unhappier the customer (Coleman, Xiao, Bair, & Chollett, 1997; Parasuraman, Zeithamal, & Berry, 1988, 1994; Shahin, 2006). The key dimensions of service quality: reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy, and physical appearance of the building and materials have been tested frequently in academic and public libraries using methodologies based on the SERVQUAL instrument (Roy, Khare, Liu, Hawkes, & Swiatek-Kelley, 2012).
Of the five service quality assets there is fairly consistent agreement among the researchers as to which is most important. The Sterling C. Evans Library study at Texas A&M University (Coleman, et al.,1997) found that reliability and responsiveness ranked as the most important service quality dimensions among their respondents. These survey results are similar to those reported by Cullen (2001) where responsiveness topped the list, and also the findings published by Roy et al. (2012) at Quinnipiac University where staff attributes (reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy) were first. Roy et al. (2012) identifies these attributes as the most difficult dimension to measure, but also the most important factors in determining overall customer satisfaction.
A user survey provides relevant information to library administration and other decision makers who do not always have direct contact with the public. However, a user survey also communicates important information to frontline staff who feel they already do know what customer service qualities are valued by the public. Anecdotal information has been proven at times to be misleading and inaccurate whereas a more evidence based approach involving surveys and focus groups provides a more realistic relationship between user satisfaction and service quality (Nagata & Klopfer, 2010; Schuerlein & Strobel, 2011). Cullen reported in 2001 that library staff “see their services as inherently desirable and blame customer ignorance or lack of motivation when their services aren’t used. Gap between what librarians think users want and what users actually want and expect has proven to be significant (p. 680).” To avoid staff bias surveys make the need for user-input critical. The University of California at San Diego user survey project reported on by Talbot, Lowell, and Martin (1998) designed an instrument that employed user input to develop survey questions. While this ultimately added a lot more time and expense to the project the researchers were satisfied with the results and a follow-up survey showed a spike in overall customer satisfaction (Talbot, et al. 1998).
Library users have been found to have similar expectations of customer service worldwide. A comparative study between Australian (Deakin University) and British (Nottingham-Trent University) academic users found that both of these groups have similar expectations McKnight, 2008). The study employed customer discovery workshops, a methodology similar to focus groups. Participants were asked to identify and rate irritants and issues they had with the current system, reporting them in a workbook, so as to avoid ‘group think’ and ‘one upmanship’ (McKnight, 2008). Because there are no set questions, unlike surveys, participants are more likely to give their true impressions. Findings from this study indicate that the customer discovery workshops did not focus on library staff qualities although participants did want library staff to be competent and knowledgeable. These findings correlate well to findings previously discussed using a survey instrument. Customer discovery workshops provided a general overall impression of library staff characteristics without providing information on distinct attributes. Overall surveys provide more in-depth information in this area.
The study performed by Calvert (2001) supports the use of an anonymous survey rather than focus groups to learn about customer expectations of staff attributes. Two unidentified universities in China and one in New Zealand (University of Wellington) conducted surveys based on the SERVQUAL model that were carefully constructed to avoid translation issues. Comparisons of the two studies confirmed that both populations of academic library customers ranked aspects of customer service in a very similar order of importance with staff reliability and responsiveness continually ranking first. Calvert’s findings (2001) show that library users consistently value the same aspects in service quality, and that these values are not culturally dependent.
Values however do change over time and what was considered ‘value added’ a few years back is now expected (Balas, 2011). Wi-Fi and e-content are two examples of services that used to impress and now are expected. Competent staff that understands how to help a patron with computer issues likewise used to be considered service that was above and beyond. Now staff that does not have a good grasp on IT issues may be considered less competent. The ever-changing expectations of the library user require that assessments be scheduled on an ongoing basis (Broady-Preston, 2002). User feedback provides information that is current and relevant but also is an effective promotional tool when acted upon. Listening to patrons is important, but unless you do something constructive with the data you have collected you are not delivering customer satisfaction (McKnight, 619).
Understanding which components of service quality Cyrenius H. Booth Library users’ value most will lead to improved customer service and an increase in customer satisfaction. This study intends to provide the library administration with useful evidence-based data that will help with staff development and hiring. The library is at the center of the Newtown community and is much appreciated by its current user base but expanding the base and improving on perceived weaknesses will further improve the library’s image and help the library remain relevant in these ever-changing times.
4.0 Research Methods and Plans for Conducting the Project
This study will employ an anonymous self-directed survey targeting current Cyrenius H. Booth Library users. The focus of the study will be on library user perceptions and attitudes regarding customer service, with a special focus on staff performance at the circulation desks. The survey is targeting library users ages 18-99 but younger library users’ opinions are also valued, and they will also be welcome to complete the survey.
Publicity about the survey will be published in the local paper, The Newtown Bee, and on the Cyrenius H. Booth website. Flyers will also be posted on bulletin boards around the library inviting patrons to participate. An e-blast will be sent to all patrons that have subscribed to the library email service. Staff members at the three circulation desks will inform the public about the customer satisfaction survey currently being conducted at the library; however no one will be pressured or coerced into filling out a survey and no staff will be involved in the collection of completed surveys.
The survey will be distributed both in print and electronically. The electronic version will be available on the library website at chboothlibrary.org and via a Constant Contact e-blast, which will be sent to all Cyrenius H. Booth Library email subscribers. Paper copies will be available at the three circulation desks for patrons preferring a non-electronic method. Clearly marked and secure ballot style boxes will be made available near the survey forms. A representative from You.Gov, a global market research firm in Waterbury Connecticut, will be collecting all of the paper copies as well as the electronic versions. They will also be hosting the survey. The survey will run for three weeks and the expected return numbers are in the 200-250 range.
Tabulation of the survey results will be conducted at the conclusion of the three-week period. A quantitative analysis will be employed and made available in a written report to the Director of the library. It will also be shared with library staff and library trustees. The author will also be available to present findings to any interested library trustees or staff. The expectation is that the results will provide important information regarding customer satisfaction at the Cyrenius H. Booth Library, giving library staff a clearer picture and empirical evidence on how they are perceived by library users. This information can be used to improve customer service and provide action oriented feedback on how to enhance the customer experience. The survey results will also be helpful in providing better staff development of existing staff as well as improve training modules for new hires.
4.1 Ethics Governing the Project
This research is committed to protecting the rights and welfare of human participants involved in research that is conducted on the campus or in cooperation with other research agencies, regardless of whether or not this project is funded externally, internally or receives no funding support. This research subscribes to the basic ethical principles for the protection of human subjects of research that underlie The Nuremberg Codes, The Helsinki Declaration, and the Southern Connecticut University Human Research Participant Protection System, Policies, Procedures and Guidelines Manual.
4.2 Author’s Qualifications
The author is a graduate student in the Department of Information and Library Science, and has completed 33 credits toward the Master of Library Science (MLS) degree, with the final three credits in progress. The author is currently enrolled in ILS 580 Research in Information and Library Science, the special project proposal course for the MLS program, under the direction of Dr. Yan Q. Liu, Professor and Graduate Faculty. The author successfully completed the NIH web-based training course Protecting Human Research Participants on 04/09/2012, certification number 902647, which may be viewed at http://phrp.nihtraining.com/users/cert/.php?c=901647. See also Appendix D.
The author has more than twenty years of experience working on the circulation desk in both public (Cyrenius H. Booth Library) and academic (Bates College and the University of California at Davis) libraries.
4.3 Human Subject (IRB) Protection
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Southern Connecticut State University has examined this proposal (#12-169) and considers it exempt from continuing IRB review. A copy of the letter may be found in Appendix C.
5.0 References
American Towns.com (2011). Newtown, Connecticut census data & community profile.
Retrieved October 5, 2012 from http://www.americantowns.com/ct/newtown.
Balas, J.L. (2011). In the public library, it’s all about the user. Information Today, 31(3).
Retrieved September 29, 2012 from EBSCOhost.
Bracke, M.S., Brewer, M., Huff-Eibl, R., Lee, D.R., Mitchell, R., & Ray, M. (2007). Finding
information in a new landscape: Developing new service and staffing models for mediated
information services. College & Research Libraries, 68(3). 248-266.
Broady-Preston, J., Steel, L. (2002). Employees, customer and internal marketing strategies in
LIS. Library Management, 23(8). 384-393.
Calvert, P.J. (2001). International variations in measuring customer expectations. Library
Trends, 49(4). 732-757.
Coleman, V., Xiao, Y., Bair, L., & Chollett, B. (1997).Toward a TQM paradigm: using
SERVQUAL to measure library service quality. College and Research Libraries, 58(3).
237-249. Retrieved September 15, 2012 from EBSCOhost.
Cyrenius H. Booth Library Annual Report -2010 (2010). Retrieved February 4, 2012 from
Documents/NewtownCT WebDocs/about
Cullen, R. (2001). Perspectives on user satisfaction surveys. Library Trends, 49(4) 662-686.
Hernon, P., & Nitecki, D. (2001) Service quality: A concept not fully explored. Library Trends,
49(4). 687-708
Hiller, S. (2001). Assessing user needs, satisfaction, and library performances at the University
of Washington Libraries. Library Trends, 49(4). 604-625.
Landrum, H. (1999). An analysis of the ability of an instrument to measure quality of library
service and library success. (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North
Texas. Retrieved on October 5, 2012 from
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:67531/metadc2245/m2/1/high_res_d/Dissertation.pdf
McKnight, S. (2008). Are there common academic library customer values? Library
Management, 29(6). 600-619.
Nagata, H., & Klopfer, L. (2010). Public library assessment in customer perspective: To which
customer group should the library listen? Library Management, 32(4/5). 336-345.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithamal, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multi-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of the service quality. Journal of Retailing, 69(1). 140-
147.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithamal, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994). Reassessment of expectations as a
comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research.
Journal of Marketing, 58(1). 111-124.
Pellack, L. (2012). Now serving customer 7,528,413. Reference & User Quarterly, 51(4). 316-
318.
Roy, A., Khare, A., Liu, B.S.C., Hawkes, L.M., & Swiatek-Kelley, J. (2012). An investigation of
affect of service using a LibQUAL+ survey and an experimental study. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 38(3) 153-160.
Schuerlein, G., & Strobel, T. (2011). Getting the most ROI from customer surveys. Public
Libraries, 50(1). 38-41.
Shahin, A. (2006). SERVQUAL and model of service gaps: a framework for determining and
prioritizing critical factors in delivering quality service.
Talbot, D. E., Lowell, G.R., & Martin, K. (1998). From the user’s perspective-the UCSD
Libraries User Survey Project. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 357-363.
Westbrook, L. (2001). Identifying and analyzing user needs. Neal Schuman, New York.
Appendix A: Cover Letter and Customer Service Survey for the
Cyrenius H. Booth Library
Dear Participant,
My name is Kim Weber and I am a graduate student in the Information and Library Science Department at Southern Connecticut State University. As part of the requirements to graduate, I must complete a special research project. I have chosen to conduct a customer service survey for the Cyrenius H. Booth Library about patron experiences with some of the library services.
The information from the survey will be used to improve customer service at the circulation desks and help us plan for the future. All information collected from this survey will remain confidential and anonymous. Completion of the attached survey is completely voluntary and you may withdraw from the survey at any time. Also please know that no library staff will be involved in collecting completed surveys.
The survey is made up of some simple short questions and should take about 10 minutes to complete. By choosing to continue with this survey, you are agreeing to the following statement:
Return of this survey indicates my consent to have my data used in this research.
Thank you for your participation and please don’t hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Kim Weber
Information and Library Science Graduate Student
Southern Connecticut State University
[email protected]
Appendix B: Customer Service Survey for the Cyrenius H. Booth Library
In order to serve the needs of our patrons, the Cyrenius H. Booth Library is seeking input from you on a variety of issues. Your opinion is very important to us and will help us plan for the future. The survey is made up of some simple questions and should take less than ten minutes to complete.
Thanks for your help.
1. How often do you visit the CH Booth Library?
□ More than once a week [SKIP TO Q #3]
□ Once a week [SKIP TO Q #3]
□ Once every two weeks
□ Once a month
□ Once every six months
□ Once a year
□ Never [ANSWER Q #2, THEN SKIP TO Q#13]
2. If you don’t use the library regularly, why not? (Check all that apply)
□ It doesn’t have the materials I need
□ I don’t have a library card
□ I buy my own books/magazines
□ I use my school/college library
□ I use a neighboring public library
□ I use the town library near to where I work
□ I don’t know what the library has to offer me
□ Other (specify)__________________________________________
3. I have taken advantage of the following services at the library. (Check all that apply)
□ To borrow best sellers
□ To get information for a school project
□ To borrow other fiction books
□ To attend children’s programs
□ To borrow nonfiction books
□ To use word processing computers
□ To get information/research
□ To borrow books on CD
□ To use the children’s area
□ To get income tax forms
□ To use the young adult area
□ To attend meetings/programs
□ To borrow DVDs
□ To use the copy machine
□ To attend teen programs
□ To read/borrow magazines
□ To meet friends/business associates
□ To use the public fax
□ To find a quiet place to work
□ To read newspapers
□ To use reference materials
□ To use the internet/Wi-Fi
□ To do job searches/databases
□ To borrow museum passes
□ Other
4. What are the top three reasons you visit the library?
□ To borrow best sellers
□ To get information for a school project
□ To borrow other fiction books
□ To attend children’s programs
□ To borrow nonfiction books
□ To use word processing computers
□ To get information/research
□ To borrow books on CD
□ To use the children’s area
□ To get income tax forms
□ To use the young adult area
□ To attend meetings/programs
□ To borrow DVDs
□ To use the copy machine
□ To attend teen programs
□ To read/borrow magazines
□ To meet friends/business associates
□ To use the public fax
□ To find a quiet place to work
□ To read newspapers
□ To use reference materials
□ To use the internet/Wi-Fi
□ To do job searches/databases
□ To borrow museum passes
□ Other □
5. Think back to the last time you visited the library. Did you find what you were looking for?
□ Yes [SKIP TO #7]
□ No
□ Partly
6. Check all statements below which explain why you did not get what you were looking for.
□ Item was checked out
□ Library did not own what I needed
□ I could not find the material
□ Staff could not find the material
□ Library computers were down
□ All computers were in use
□ Could not find item on shelf
□ Staff requested material through Interlibrary loan
□ Other (please specify)______________________________________________
7. Please think back to the last time you visited the library. Which, if any, of the following describes the service you received? (Check all that apply)
□ Staff was helpful & pleasant
□ Staff was considerate & thoughtful
□ Staff was knowledgeable
□ Staff was too busy to help
□ Staff took too long to help
□ Staff was discourteous & uncooperative
□ I did not need help or service the last time
8. For the next question, we’d like you to rate the importance of certain customer service aspects of the Cyrenius Booth library, on a scale of extremely important to not at all important. Please select one response for each of the following aspects.
Extremely Important
Very Important
Somewhat
important
Not Very Important
Not at all important
Prompt service to customers
Employees are courteous
Employees are caring
Employees understand customer needs
Have best interest of customer
Willingness to help
Customers informed about when services will be performed
Provide services as promised
Employees instill confidence in customers
Employees are able to answer customer questions
Readiness to respond to customer questions
Dependable in answering customer questions
Perform services right the first time
Visually appealing facilities
Provide individual attention
Employees have neat and professional appearance
Convenient library hours
Up to date technology
Transactions are accurate
9. Now please rate the Cyrenius Booth library itself on these same customer service aspects using the following scale of excellent to poor. Even if you have not experienced one of these situations, answer based on what your expectations would be. Please select one response for each of the following aspects.
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Prompt service to customers
Employees are courteous
Employees are caring
Employees understand customer needs
Have the best interest of the customer
Willingness to help customers
Keeps customers informed about when services will be performed
Provide services as promised
Employees instill confidence in customers
Employees have the knowledge to answer customer questions
Readiness to respond to customer questions
Dependable in answering customer questions
Perform services right the first time
Visually appealing facilities
Give customers individual attention
Employees have neat and professional appearance
Convenient library hours
Up to date technology
Transactions are accurate
10. Overall, how would you rate the Cyrenius H. Booth Library?
Check one response only.
□ Excellent
□ Very Good
□ Good
□ Fair
□ Poor
11. Would you recommend us to a friend?
□ Yes □ No
12. Why do you say that? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
These last few questions will only be used to help classify survey participants, your individual responses will never be reported.
13. Your gender
□ Male □ Female
14. Your age group
□ 11 and under □ 40 - 49
□ 12 -17 □ 50 - 59
□ 18 - 29 □ 60 - 69
□ 30 - 39 □ 70 - 79
□ 80 and older
15. Your education level
□ Some high school or less
□ High school graduate
□ Vocational/Technical school
□ Some college
□ College graduate
□ Graduate degree(s)
Appendix C: IRB Exemption Letter
Appendix D: NIH Certificate of Completion for
Protecting Human Research Participants
Appendix E: Permission Letter for Host Agency