Search results

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a survey instrument to measure three components of students’ perceptions of open and affordable course materials – quality, integration, and experience – and discuss its reliability and predictive validity.

The authors distributed an end-of-semester online survey to students enrolled in sections of 12 courses that adopted OER in Fall 2016, as well as conducting a within-interview survey with the instructors of those courses. The authors calculated the descriptive statistics from the responses to the student survey, as well as examining the inter-item and inter-rater reliability of the instrument. Finally, explored correlations in the data gathered through both the student and faculty surveys were explored.

The authors found that both students and faculty were generally pleased with the quality and experience of using open and affordable digital materials. The authors also found that our three survey subscales had strong inter-item reliability, and that the quality and experience subscales had predictive validity in terms of whether students would choose a traditional or digital text in future courses.

In addition to providing evidence in terms of the full survey instrument’s reliability and predictive validity, factor analysis indicates that a short scale of quality and experience Likert scale items could be used by practitioners to effectively assess satisfaction of digital materials among traditionally aged undergraduate students.

LibQUAL+® allows users to rate their minimum, perceived, and desired levels of service for 22 items in three dimensions: information control, library as place, and service affect. Using the results from the 2005 survey at the University of Texas at Austin, this paper aims to examine how well the service priorities of library staff are aligned with the priorities of undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty.

The paper has re‐scaled the “desired” score for each item to reflect the degree to which the item is above or below the average desired level for that individual. The rescaled scores (termed “priority” scores) for the 22 items were then compared between the four groups using a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA).

Preliminary results indicate that service priorities for library staff align more closely with those of undergraduates than with those of graduate students and faculty.

This analysis is a first step in identifying service priority gaps between library staff and the users they serve. The intention is to promote discussion among library staff about users' needs and how closely staff service priorities align with those needs. In addition, the findings may prove useful as management information by allowing the analysis of users' service priorities and integrating the results of this analysis into organizational decision making and planning processes.

This paper describes a development of LibQUAL+® that enables a greater depth of understanding of service priorities.