1
— A Study of the National Open University Library
Miao-Hsueh Lin
Head of Reader Service of University Library, NOU
Abstract
This study was based on the LibQUAL+ scale, and based on the
scholars’ research, senior librarians' opinions and characteristics of
university libraries, a questionnaire with a total of 29 questions for
measuring users’ satisfaction and quality of library service was
designed. Based on the empirical results, the five service items of the
most importance were found. In addition, five service items need to
be reviewed and to be improved for the library.
In terms of effects the quality of library services, the ANOVA
analysis was conducted on different groups of users. The means
among groups was significantly different. For students, their actual
feelings of satisfaction and the perceived service quality in the
“service aspect” are the lowest; for the full-time teachers, the
satisfaction of the actual feelings in the “collection resources aspect”
and the perceived service quality are the lowest. Among the five
aspects , the scores of “librarians “ in each groups are found very high.
It can be seen that the service performance of NOU university
librarians is worthy of recognition and encouragement. Finally, based
-36-
3
on the empirical results, the study proposes relevant suggestions for
future research.
-37-


-39-
2. Employee happy then customer happy.
3. Response anyone at any time.







PZB1988




1. Security

7. Timing
Gronroos1984


2006
PZB

2. reliability
3. responsiveness
5. empathy
SERVQUAL ES
PS ES
PS ES>PS



LibQUAL+ PZB SERQUAL


2002 ARL LibQUAL+ 25
(1)
information5 ARL LibQUAL+
22
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
-43-
-44-
11







5432
1 0 (1)
1 6(2) 7 11(3)
12 17(4) 18 24(5) 25 29





600
406 52.39%



()

sphericityKMO 0 1 1
KMO>0.80.7
Bartlett1951




-47-
1
120 29.6% 282 69.4%

42 10.3% 31
60
1 2 174 42.9%0 118
29.1%
-48-
15
5 7 1.7
4.554.55
4.474.47
3.793.74
3.693.66
4.35 3.29 -1.06
19. /
4.36 3.36 -1.00
26. 4.34 3.20 -1.14
27. 4.37 3.33 -1.04
28. 4.40 3.36 -1.04
29. /APP 4.26 3.15 -1.11
4.37 3.42 -0.95

-1.14-1.12/APP
-1.11
-0.77


KMO>0.80.7
bartlett test

Bartlett p 0.001


121825 29
-52-
19
20. / .778 .357 .290 .291 .122
19. /
21. / .738 .341 .195 .346 .270
22. .736 .311 .194 .266 .326
23. .693 .330 .193 .408 .307
24. .659 .253 .213 .320 .438
18. .553 .411 .502 .224 .147
29. /APP .547 .169 .274 .383 .534
02. .295 .822 .327 .218 .214
03. .355 .801 .333 .224 .137
04. .323 .795 .299 .273 .217
01. .281 .768 .419 .228 .162
05. .332 .726 .269 .336 .281
06. .340 .723 .249 .339 .288
07. .200 .294 .827 .171 .226
08. .203 .341 .822 .226 .202
09. .208 .362 .780 .258 .219
11. .274 .234 .746 .359 .239
25. .228 .353 .610 .236 .470
10. .336 .202 .562 .455 .271
13. .415 .330 .247 .696 .219
14. .413 .306 .346 .690 .144
17. () .426 .244 .289 .687 .218
16. .313 .359 .299 .683 .333
15. .290 .394 .353 .628 .340
12. .488 .298 .335 .586 .226
26. .331 .231 .377 .289 .680
27. .294 .351 .423 .277 .662
28. .313 .336 .412 .248 .648
1012182529 KMO Bartlett (
6)KMO 0.952 0.9Bartlett p 0.001
7
89.916%
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin 0.952

02. .824 .304 .314 .223 .206
03. .803 .359 .328 .223 .134
04. .798 .340 .290 .263 .210
01. .767 .273 .400 .239 .184
05. .733 .358 .255 .316 .270
06. .731 .367 .235 .321 .272
20./ .354 .779 .277 .287 .123
19./
26. .227 .367 .367 .267 .687
27. .347 .315 .391 .284 .683
28. .329 .322 .379 .275 .666
-56-
23
0.7
Cronbach's α 0.7 0.8,0.9
10

-57-
26. 6.71 11.116 0.828 0.709
27. 6.56 11.015 0.922 0.858
28. 6.53 11.539 0.867 0.803
-58-
25




2.94
4.21 3.37 3.27

3.65 3.29
2. 4.11
3.67 3.51
3. 4.02
3.24
-59-
5. 4.21
3.24 3.04
ANOVA


3.27 4.21 3.37
2

PS ≥ ESPS-ES ≥ 0PS < ES
PS-ES < 0 12 3
ANOVA
-0.92 -1.05
-1.00
-0.96
-1.08
-1.289
-1.11


-1.05 -0.54 -0.92

t 1314 F
0.05
t 0.05

F t
1.548 0.214 -0.544 0.587
-0.525 0.600
-0.566 0.572
0.145 0.885
0.561 0.576
0.120 0.905
-0.408 0.683
0.018 0.986
0.385 0.701
1.135 0.258
0.712 0.478
-65-
20 50
31 60
1 2
42.9%0 29.1%


24 6
4 5 6 3
-66-
33

ANOVA
3.27
ANOVA p 0.05


Keller2012

STP
()








56 49-68


8. 2005LIBQUAL+™

4 31-51
<https://www.libqual.org/home>.
12. Colleen Cook and Bruce Thompson2001. “Psychometric Properties of
Scores from the Web-Based LibQUAL+ Study of Perceptions of Library
Service Quality”. LIBRARY TRENDS, 49:4, pp.585-604.
13. Gronroos, C. 1984 . “A Service Quality Model and its Marketing
Implications”, European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), pp.37-45.
14. J. Joseph Cronin and Steven A. Taylor1992. “Measuring Service Quality: A
Reexamination and Extension”, Journal of Marketing, 56(3), pp.55-68.
-71-

tation and Control, 9th ed , Englweood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
16. M. Brady and J. Cronin Jr. (2001). “Some New Thoughts on Conceptualizing
Perceived Service Quality: A Hierarchical Approach”. Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 65, pp. 34-49.
17. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L.1985.”A Conceptual Model
of Service Quality and its Implications for Future Research”. Journal of
Marketing, vol.49, pp.41-50.
18. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L.1988. “SERVQUAL: A
Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality”,
Journal of Retailing, 641, pp.12-40.
19. Philip Kotler & Gary Armstrong.2010. Principles of Marketing, 13th ed.,
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, pp. 73-74..
20. Philip Kotler & Kevin Lane Keller.2012. Marketing Management, 14th ed.,
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, p. 32.
21. Sasser, W. E., Olsen, R. P., and Wyckoff, D. D.1978. Management of
Service Operations-Text, Case, and Readings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc.
-72-
01-
02-LibQUAL