College and Research Libraries PHILIP V. RZASA and JOHN H. MORIARTY The Types and Needs of Academic Library Users: A Case Study of 6,568 Responses Responses to a Library User, s Questionnaire were analyzed by use of a chi-square statistic to determine whether the faculty, graduate stu- dents, and undergraduates were homogeneous with respect to their primary and secondary reasons for visiting the library, and also with respect to the library materials used. IF IT WERE POSSIBLE to divide the total population of library users into subpop- ulations based on their needs, academic library administrators could better pre- dict the responses of these user groups to proposed programs or changes. Pro- grams might be developed aimed spe- cifically at satisfying needs of a particu- lar group. Thus it is desirable to identi- fy functionally different user groups, not only to gauge library effectiveness but also to guide its programs. In a re- cent survey conducted in an academic library, faculty and student users (i.e., library "visitors") were asked to evalu- ate the library's services. To discover their attitudes and certain descriptive information about respondents, a spe- cial questionnaire was designed and di- rected to a sampling of users at all lev- els. The response of users was excellent, and 6,568 gave the information request- Mr. Rzasa and Mr. Moriarty are partici- pants in the Purdue Universi;ty Engineering Analysis of Information Service Systems Project, supported in part by NSF Grant GN 2394. ed by the survey questionnaire.~.~< It is assumed that different users visit the library for different purposes but that it is also possible to identify gen- eral types of users. One possible and conventional classification divides users into four categories: faculty, graduate students, undergraduates, and others. It was hypothesized that by such grouping, the library could determine whether a significant difference exists among the groups based upon their needs for li- brary materials. If there are such differ- ences in group needs or preferences, the library may then be able to focus new programs on the needs of the various groups. More specifically, if the univer- sity decided to build its undergraduate programs, the library administration could focus attention on needs of the undergraduate students and develop plans, programs, and budgets to satisfy these needs. On the other hand, if the university focused on the growth of the 0 See Appendix. The assistance of Dr. War- ren Seibert, Instructional Media Research Unit, Purdue University, in all phases of work on this questionnaire is gratefully acknowledged. I 403 404 I College & Research Libraries • November 1970 graduate programs, then plans, services, and budgets should be developed to sat- isfy these needs. For example, one likely difference between the library needs of graduate students and undergraduates is that graduate students prefer to seek periodicals and journals for the more current developments in their fields of interest, whereas undergraduates prefer books more for the history and a gen- eral knowledge of their field of inter- est.1 However, only the examination of the data from a very detailed Library User's Questionnaire can sharpen the determination of the specific types, number, and appropriate weighting of needs of the users. I. The Questionnaire The Library User's Questionnaire consisted of thirteen questions with re- sponse alternatives for each question. The users responded by selecting the al- ternatives most accurate or descriptive for them and by marking the corre- sponding space on an IBM mark-sensed card. The number of alternatives for each question varied from six to twelve. The first question dealt with the user's present relation to the university: professor, associate professor, assistant professor, instructor, Ph.D. student, master's student, senior, junior, sopho- more, freshman, staff, and those not as- sociated with the university. For the analysis, the responses from professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and instructors were combined to form a faculty group; Ph.D. and master's stu- dents formed the graduate student group; and seniors, juniors, sophomores, and freshmen formed the undergradu- ate student group. Staff members and persons not associated with the univer- sity were not included in the analysis. The questionnaire's second question, dealing with the length of time the user was employed by or attending the uni- versity was not considered of impor- tance because, except for the faculty, a relationship exists between the student classification and the number of years at the university. The third question dealt with the principal field of study or the "n1ajor" of the respondent. The breakdown of possible responses was essentially by broad fields or classes descriptive of schools and/ or related areas of study: e.g., engineering, physical sciences, and history or political science. The fourth question dealt with the frequency of the respondent's visits to the library. The alternatives ranged from "at least once daily" to "less than once a month." The fifth question asked the respon- dent to indicate his principal reason for coming to the library that day. Re- sponses to this question should have in- dicated to the library administration: 1 ) why most of the users came to the li- brary; and 2) the differences, if any, in the purposes of groups of users. An in- depth analysis of the responses to ques- tion five should have enabled the library administrator to discover the main rea- sons patrons use the library facilities. The sixth question asked respondents their secondary reasons for coming to the library. The combination of ques- tions five and six should thus have given good indication of the user's reasons for coming to the library. If, for ex- ample, few people came to the library to read for pleasure and if the library administration wished to increase the number of such readers, it should devel- op programs directed toward attainment of this goal. The library might conduct an advertising campaign to publicize the pleasures of reading or it might increase and keep current the amount of reading m_aterial for recreation. The seventh and eighth questions dealt with the principal (or "main") materials and the secondary or other ma- terials respondents used in the library. These two questions can be considered the most important in the survey, since they reveal which materials are sought from the library. If one considers that the primary goal of a library is to pro- vide materials to satisfy users' needs, then the identification of that material and/ or information which satisfies a user's needs implies that it should be contained within the library system. If, of course, the material and/ or infor- mation sought by users is not within the library system, then plans and programs should be developed to insure their pres- ence. Questions nine through thirteen dealt with the user's evaluation of the li- brary's physical condition and the li- brary's ability to satisfy its patrons. The responses varied in five steps from "ex- cellent" to "very poor" and included the alternative, "the question does not ap- ply." II. Analysis The first analysis of the Library User's Questionnaire was a series of chi- square statistical tests to determine whether the distributions of the users' principal reasons for coming to the li- brary differed for faculty, graduate stu- dents, and undergraduates. The raw data were in the form of a stratified sample and percentages were given, i.e., the sum total of responses of full pro- fessors was 100 percent; of associate professors was 100 percent; and of as- sistant professors was 100 percent. To evaluate the data in this form , a com- Academic Library Users I 405 puter program was written which com- bined responses of the faculty into one column, responses of graduate students into a second column, and responses of undergraduates into a third column, and which then performed a chi-square analysis. The program for questions five, six, seven, and eight can be secured from the authors. The total usable sam- ple size was 6,323. The formula which can be used when the data are in the form of percentages is that suggested by Walker and Lev.2 (See formula below.) The hypothesis for question five is that the distribution of users' principal reasons for visiting the library is the same for all three groups: faculty, grad- uate students, and undergraduates. If the hypothesis is accepted, it would mean that these three groups are homog- enous with respect to their principal reasons for coming to the library. For analysis of the question, responses 5e, 5f, and 5g were combined to insure that the Pij value would be greater than zero. With r designating the number of rows and c designating the number of columns, a chi-square value with ( r-1) ( c-1) degrees of freedom , ( 8 ) ( 2) = 16 degrees of freedom , and a probability of acceptance of .999 is 39.3. The chi- square value calculated for the re- sponses of the faculty, graduate stu- dents, and undergraduate students is 1,910. Thus, the hypothesis that the dif- ferent groups are homogeneous with re- spect to their principal reasons for vis- iting the library is rejected. X2 = N (~ ~ Pu _ I) 1 J pij where N = the total sample size pij = the observed proportion in the ij cell pij = the expected proportion in the ij cell = (pt) (p.j) P t. = ~ P tj the row total j p .j = ~ p 1j the column total i ~--------------------------------------------------------- - ----- -- -- 406 I College & Research Libraries • November 1970 It should be noted that the largest re- sponse category for faculty respondents was "to do research for a publishable paper or book" ( 21 percent), while more than 50 percent of the faculty came to do research for a publishable paper, "read library material for self- improvement," or "find and read ma- terial required for a course." The largest response category for the graduate students was to "find and read material required for a course" ( 30 per- cent) , while more than 65 percent of the graduate students came to "find and read material required for a course," "do homework with own books," or "do research for graduate exams or thesis." The largest response category for the undergraduate was "to do homework with own books" (over 50 percent) and over 72 percent came to "do homework with own books" or "find and read ma- terial required for a course." The hypothesis for question six is that the distribution of users~ secondary reasons for coming to the library is the same for faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates. For the analysis, re- sponses 6e, 6f, and 6g were combined to insure that the Pij value would be greater than zero. A chi-square value with ( r-1) ( c-1) degrees of freedom, ( 9) ( 2) = 18 degrees of freedom, and a probability of acceptance of .999 is 42.3. The chi-square value calculated for responses to the question was 527. The hypothesis that the three different groups are homogeneous with respect to their secondary reasons for visiting the library is rejected. It should be noted al- so that, of all the users, 43 percent re- ported no secondary reason for their li- brary visit. The most common response of the faculty to question six indicated ccno secondary reason" for their visit, while the two most common responses were to "borrow material for later reading," and "read material for self-improve- ment." These three responses accounted for over 63 percent of all faculty re- sponses to the question. The most common response of the graduate students indicated "no second- ary reason" ( 32 percent), while the three next most common responses were to "find and read material required for a course," "do homework with own books," and "read library material for self-improvement." These four re- sponses accounted for over 66 percent of the graduate student responses. The most common response of the undergraduates again indicated "no sec- ondary reason" ( 48 percent), while the next most common response was to "do homework with own books." The two responses accounted for over 65 percent of the undergraduates' responses. The hypothesis for question seven is that the distribution of the primary li- brary materials used is the same for fac- ulty, graduate students, and undergrad- uate users. For the analysis of the ques- tion, responses 7 e, 7f, 7 g, and 7h were combined to insure that Pij value was greater than zero. A chi-square value with ( r-1) ( c-1) degrees of freedom, ( 9) ( 2) = 18 degrees of freedom, and a probability of acceptance of .999 is 42.3. The chi-square value calculated for responses is 1,163. The hypothesis that the three different groups are ho- mogeneous with respect to the primary library materials used is thus rejected. The four most common faculty re- sponses to question seven, which ac- counted for over 75 percent of their re- sponses, were scholarly journals or peri- odicals, reference books, books, mono- graphs and individual works, and re- serve books. The four largest responses, accounting for more than 70 percent of the graduate student responses, were scholarly journals or periodicals, re- serve books, reference books, and books, monographs, and individual works. As mentioned in the discussion of question five, more than 50 percent of the undergraduates brought their own materials. The two next most common responses, each over 25 percent, were for reserve books and reference books. The hypothesis for question eight is that the distribution of the "secondary or other" library materials used is the same for faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates. As in question sev- en, responses Be, 8f, 8g, and 8h were combined. The chi-square for 18 de- grees of freedom and a probability of acceptance of .999 is 42.3. The chi- square calculated for the responses to question 8 was 394. Therefore, the hy- pothesis is rejected. In the responses to the question, it should be noted that about 58 percent of all users did not use secondary ma- terials. This may account for the low value of the calculated chi-square as compared with the values for earlier questions. The two largest responses of the fac- ulty, representing over 25 percent, were due to reference books, and scholarly journals or periodicals. The largest re- sponse was that "no other materials" were used, representing over 41 percent of the respondents. The two most common responses of the graduates chosen, by more than 25 percent, were also for scholarly journals or periodicals, and reference books. More than 42 percent of the graduates reportedly used no other materials. The three most common responses of the undergraduates, with over 17 per- cent responding, were for reference books, scholarly journals or periodicals, and reserve books. Over 63 percent of the undergraduates did not use other materials. III. Implications of User Response In the previous section, it was seen that the faculty group, the graduate student group, and the undergraduates were not homogeneous with respect to their reasons for coming to the library, Academic Library Users I 407 nor in the library materials which they used. Let us now consider the similari- ties and dissimilarities among the groups, given their responses to the questionnaire. The main interests of the faculty for using the library facilities were to do research for a publishable paper and to read for self-improvement. There was little or no overlap of these interests with those of the two student groups. On the other hand, the third largest re- sponse of the faculty (to read material required for a course) was the main in- terest of the graduate students ( 30 per- cent) for both their primary and sec- ondary reasons for coming to the li- brary. Course requirements were the sec- ond largest need of the undergraduates. This suggests that programs aimed at providing material required for courses would help satisfy needs of all three user groups. The largest response cate- gory (in terms of a percentage of a group and the number of users) was to do homework with their own books. Over 50 percent of the undergraduates gave this response as a primary reason, and an additional 17 percent gave it as a secondary reason. This category was also the second largest for the graduate students. These results indicate that the library should either plan to provide sufficient study space for the student groups or, together with the university community, plan to provide appropriate study halls elsewhere on the campus. Scholarly journals and periodicals are the primary materials used by both fac- ulty and graduate students. Therefore it might be expected that increased ex- penditures for these materials would help to satisfy the primary needs of the faculty and graduates but would not necessarily satisfy the primary or sec- ondary needs of the undergraduates. Reserve books and reference books are the other materials desired by all three user groups. This would imply that the library administration should focus on J 408 I College & Research Libraries • November 1970 both of these. Programs which consider the placement and removal of books to and from the reserve list might be bene- ficial. REFERENCES 1. Trueswell, R. W., "User Behavioral Pat- terns and Requirements and Their Ef- fect on the Possible Applications of Data Processing and Techniques in a Univer- sity Library," Ph.D. Thesis, Northwest- em University, 1964. 2. Walker, H. M., and Lev, J., Statistical Inference (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1953), p.97. APPENDIX LIBRARY UsER's QUEsTIONNAIRE Your help is requested. Just before you leave the library, please take three or four min- utes to answer the questions below. Your answers will help us to understand the library interests and opinions of the faculty, students, and others. MARK YOUR ANSWERS ON THE IBM CARD, USING THE SPECIAL (SOFT) PENCIL YOU RECEIVED. For each question, locate the response that is most accurate or descriptive for you and mark the corresponding space on the IBM card. Please record only one answer to each question. The University Trustees have authorized this questionnaire as part of a library's survey. 1. I am a: A Professor B Associate Professor C Assistant Professor D Instructor E Ph.D. student F Master's student G Senior H Junior I Sophomore J Freshman K Staff member L Person not with the university 2. I have been employed by or am attend- ing the university: A Less than 1 year B 1 or 2 years C 3 or 4 years D 5 or 6 years E 7 or 8 years F 9 or 10 years G 11 to 15 years H 16 to 20 years I 21 years or more J The question does not apply 3. My principal field of study or my "major" may be classed as: A Agriculture B Biological Sciences C Economics-Business Administration D Education E Engineering F English or Speech G History or Political Science H Languages I Mathematics-Statistics J Physical Sciences K Psychology-Sociology L Other (than those above) 4. I visit and make some use of the library: A at least once daily B almost daily C more than once a week D about once a week E two or three times a month F about once a month G less than once a month 5. Today, my principal reason for coming to the library is to: A find and read material required for a course B read library material for self-im- provement C read for pleasure (or for fun) D borrow library material for later reading E do research for a term paper F do research for graduate exams or thesis G do research for a publishable paper or book H return books-rna terials to the library I get some material copied (Xeroxed) J do homework with my own books K do something else (not mentioned above) 6. Today, my secondary reason for coming to the library is to: A find and read material required for a course B read library material for self-im- provement C read for pleasure (or for fun) D borrow library material for later reading E do research for a term paper F do research for graduate exams or thesis G do research for a publishable paper or book H return books-materials to the library I get some material copied (Xeroxed) J do homework with my own books K do something else (not mentioned above) L do nothing else (I have no second- ary reason) 7. Today, the principal library materials I used were: A scholarly journals or periodicals B popular magazines c D E F G H I newspapers reserve books reference books dissertations or theses microfilm or microform material phonograph records books, monographs, individual works J leisure or "light reading" books K not in the list above L none (I brought own materials) 8. Today the "other" or secondary mate- rials I used were: A scholarly journals or periodicals B popular magazines C newspapers D reserve books E reference books F dissertations or theses G microfilm or microform material H phonograph records I books, monographs, individual works J leisure or "light reading" books Academic Library Users I 409 K not in the list above L none 9. Today, my success in finding the infor- mation and library materials I needed was: A The question does not apply B Excellent (found everything) C Good (found most things) D Fair (found some things) E Poor (found few things) F Very poor (found nothing) 10. Today, the physical condition of the library materials I used was: A The question does not apply B Excellent C Good D Fair E Poor F Very poor 11. Today, the service I received from the librarians and library staff was: A The question does not apply B Excellent C Good D Fair E Poor F Very poor 12. In my experience, the physical condi- tion and the arrangement of the library has been: A The question does not apply B Excellent C Good D Fair E Poor F Very poor 13. Considering all aspects of the library as I have experienced them, I would judge that the library is: A I have no opinion B Excellent C Good D Fair E Poor F Very poor ANY FURTHER COMMENTS YOU CARE TO MAKE ARE WELCOME. PLEASE WRITE YOUR COMMENTS ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF YOUR IBM CARD.