Assessment of Library Service Quality

At

Thammasat University Library System

Assist. Prof. Narit Nimsomboon
Department of Library Science
Faculty of Liberal Arts
Thammasat University
THAILAND

And
Prof. Haruki Nagata
Research Center for Knowledge Communities
University of Library and Information Science
JAPAN

August, 2003

Assessment of Library Service QualityatThammasat University Library System
Narit Nimsomboon and Haruki Nagata
Abstract
This study examines the overall service quality of Thammasat University
Library System from users’ perspectives, as well as identifies the dimensions that
determine the customers’ evaluation of service quality The concept of the Zone ofTolerance was applied to investigate which are the essential attributes that librarymanagers should allocate the resource for good service quality. The problems users had
encountered when involved in library service are also investigated in this study.
A survey of undergraduate students, graduate students, facutly members andresearchers was used. The modification of SERVQUAL questionnaires were distributedfor data gathering. Several insight gained from this study shown that all users desired
expectations are not met. The result of the Zone of Tolerance reveals that each user group
was treated differently. The three dimensions of service quality ; Affect of service –Organizational, Collection&Access, and Affect of service – Personal were extracted byfactor analysis method. The problems users encountered when involved in library service
are counted manually and categorized into free categories. The most problematic is about
insufficient and non update collection. Some useful recommendations are presented to
improve service quality of TU library system.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research project “ Assessment of Library Service Quality at Thammasat
University Library System ” was conducted under auspices of Research Center for
Knowledge Communities, University of Tsukuba, JAPAN. First of all, I have topresent my high gratitude to Prof. Haruki Nagata for his kind cooperation andhelpfulness. Besides, I feel very thankful for kindness of
Mr. Yoshinori Sato and Mr. Toshimori Atsushi for giving me most usefulcomments. I don’t forget Miss Matsuo Yoko for her endeavor to be my data editor
and giving me most valuable friendship that make me spend most happy time inJapan.

Assist. Prof. Narit NimsombooniContents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTCONTENTTABLES
GRAPHESCHAPTERI. Introduction
Background
Study Problem
Purposes of the study
Significance of the Study
Research Questions
Scope and Limitations

Page
i
ii
iv
v
1
1
1
2
2
3
3

II. Review of the Related Literature
Introduction
History of SERVQUALSERVQUAL in Library Setting
Using SERVQUAL for Library Service Quality Assessment in Thailand
Concept of Service Quality for Library Assessment
Related Research
Related Research in Thailand

4
4
4
6
6
6
7
9

III. Method and Procedures
Instrumentation
Sampling and Response Rates
Data Treatment
Characteristics of Sample Groups
Statistical Method and Techniques Used for Data Analysis

11
11
11
12
14
25

IV. Data Analysis
1. What are the gaps between user desired service expectations and actual
service perception
2. By individual group of users, what are the gaps between user desired
service expectations and actual service perception ?
3. By individual group of users, what are the users’ expectations for excellent
service quality from TU Library system?
4. What are the underlying dimensions of service quality of TU Library
System from user perspectives.
5. By individual user group, what attributes are inside and outside the rangeof the “ Zone of Tolerance “?
6. What are the problems users encountered when involved in Libraryservices?
Summary of findings

26
26

V. Summary, Discussion and Recommendations
Overview of the study

55
55

29
36
41
45
49
51

Statement of the Problem
Subjects
Instrumentation
Data Collection
Statistical Analysis
Discussion
The Gaps Between User Desired Expectations and Actual Service
Perception
The User Desired Service Expectations
The Dimensions of User Desired Expectations
The Zone of Tolerance
The Problems Users Encountered When Involved in Library Services
Recommendations
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A : The Modification of SERVQUAL Questionnaire

55
55
55
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
59
61
63

TABLES
Table
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
3.19
3.20
3.21
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14

Sampling methods
Questionnaire returned by each respondent groups
Sex of respondents
Categories of respondent groups
Categories for graduate Students
Categories for undergraduate students
Categories of faculty/researcher
Age groups (Faculty/researcher)
Major subject areas
Library ( most frequently used)
Frequency of library use
Frequency of remote use for all users
Frequency of remote use (Faculty/researcher)Frequency of remote use (Graduate students)
Frequency of remote use ( Undergraduate students)
Number of selected respondents compare with total TU population
Academic position of faculty respondents compare with total faculty
population
Frequency of user responses for minimum service expectation (Ranked
by missing value)
Frequency of user responses for desired service expectation (Ranked
by missing value)
Frequency of user responses for actual service perception (Ranked by
missing value)Comparison of the orders of missing values among 3 levels of quality
service expectations
Gap difference between desired service expectations and perceived
service expectation (order by gap size)
Faculty/researcher (t-test)
Gap difference between desired expectations and actual service
perceptions (Faculty/researcher ranked by gap size)
Graduate Students (t-test)
Gap difference between desired expectations and actual service
perceptions (Graduate students ranked by gap size)
Undergraduate student (t-test)
Gap difference between desired expectations and actual service
perceptions (undergraduate students ranked by gap size)
Desired service expectation of faculty/researcher (Order by means)
Desired service expectation of graduate students (Order by means)
Desired service expectation of undergraduate students (Order bymeans)
Service expectations of all user groups (Order by means)
Top ten attributes of Desired service expectation of all user groups
Factor Analysis of Desired Service Perception
Problems that users encountered when involved in library services

Page
12
12
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
28
30
31
32
33
34
35
37
38
39
40
41
43
50

GRAPHES
Graph
4.1
4.2
4.3

Faculty/researcher perceptions and Zone of Tolerance
Graduate student perceptions and perceptions and Zone ofTolerance
Undergraduate student perceptions and perceptions and Zone ofTolerance

Page
46
47
48

Chapter 1
Introduction
Background
Academic libraries are facing two major threats : a global digital
environment and increasing competition. They must improve the quality of theirservices in order to survive. (Cullen, 2001) Historically, the quality of an academic
library has been described in terms of its collection and measured by the size of thelibrary’s holdings and various counts of its uses. “ A measured of library quality
based solely on collections has become obsolete” . Alternative approaches to measurequality emerge in the business sector. Specifically, through marketing research, theSERVQUAL ( which was developed by A. Parasuraman, Valarie A. Zeithaml andLeonard L. Berry ) has evolved as an instrument to measure service quality and whatcustomers values as important. SERVQUAL is a mechanism to shift the assessmentof quality of a library from the traditions of measuring collection size and counting
incidents of its uses, to begin investigating how the provision of services relates to thelibrary users’ service quality expectations ( Nitecki, 1996). SERVQUAL has beenused in various service industries, including academic, public, and special libraries.
( Hernon, 2002) . It is important for libraries to know how well their performance bygetting feedback from users because it is the factor for libraries to succeed in service
performance.
This study used the adapted version of SERVQUAL to examine the libraryservice quality of Thai academic library and explore how the service factors derived
from the factor analysis were related to user expectation.
Study Problem
In Thailand, the quality of educational development and its academic
excellence has been emphasized in the eighth National Economic and Social
Development Plan (1997-2001). The Ministry of University Affairs has played asignificant role to encourage higher education institutions in maintaining andimproving their academic standards so that they can produce graduates who satisfy
the need of employers. In order to achieve the objective, the quality assurance policy
was proclaimed for institutions to implement for better productivity on July 8, 1996.
The policy has required all public universities to improve and enhance their efforts for
quality of instruction and the academic learning environment. (Bureau of Higher
Education Standards, Ministry of University Affairs ( http://www.qa.mua.go.th/English/policy.html ) All academic libraries in Thailand including Thammasat
University (TU) Library System as an academic service organizations are involvedin such an environment inevitably.
The TU Library system is among the largest academic library system inThailand and was established in 1934 along with the founding of the University.
Thammasat libraries serve university students, staff, and faculty as its first priority
members; other users include students, staff and faculty of other academic
institutions, alumni, and paying members. Major portions of the collection cover the
subject areas of social science and humanities, science and technology, appliedscience, and medical science. Presently, the libraries serve approximately 9,000 users
per day consisting of: lecturers ,undergraduate students ,graduate students ,university
staff ,as well as other users. The libraries’ collections comprise 930,226 monograph1

volumes. These consist of 625,619 books in the Thai language and 304,607 in foreign
languages. The libraries have 2,235 journals in the Thai language and 2,123 journals
in foreign languages. There are 6,323 documents in the Thai language and 8,325
documents in foreign languages in the collection. The library receives 32 newspapers;
in addition, there are 20,835 audiovisual items, 46 CD-ROM databases and 9 online
databases. Besides providing modern facilities to their users, the libraries have tried to
improve the service quality continually by providing a various kinds of services suchas inter-library loan , audiovisual material service and information retrieval in various
subjects from internet and CD-ROM databases ; furthermore , individual and class
instruction for users are provided on request. (TU Library System ,http://library.tu.ac.th/detail/about.html, and Self Study Report – SSR : Thammasat
University Library System, Thammasat Univeristy (January1-June 30, 2002,63-64 ) .
The TU library managers are also hearing user opinion via the various
channels such as e-mail and poll box as well as doing the survey about library user’s
satisfaction at least once a year but service quality is multidimensional so the librarymanagers must look for better ways to measure and describe the quality of theirservices. ( Hernon & Altman, 1998) The result obtained from this study will help thelibrary managers in understanding institutional and user differences and similarities,
finding the user problems and reducing the gap between user perception and
expectation.
Purposes of the Study
The purposes of the study are as the followings:
1. To assess the overall service quality of TU Library System from theusers’ perspectives.
2. To assess the service quality of TU library System from theperspective of each different respondent user group. (Faculty/researchers, graduate
and undergraduate students) .
3. To identify the dimensions that determine the customers’ evaluation ofservice quality in TU Library System
4. To investigate which are the essential attributes that library managers
should allocate the resource for good service quality.
5. To identify the problems users had encountered when involved inlibrary service.

Significance of the study
This research study deems to important because of the following reasons :1. As the culture of assessment in libraries has strong international
dimensions ( Kyrillidou and Hipps, 2001,
http://www.arl.org/newsltr/215/octsymp.html ), this study is international
collaboration on assessing library service quality among scholars in Finland, Japan,
United Kingdom and Thailand so the result obtained maybe confirm that there areglobal commonalities in the way users think about library service quality.
2. It is the chance to implement the study related to library service quality
in Thai library community by using the adaptation of SERVQUAL and ;3. This study may urge the new culture of assessment library service
quality among Thai academic libraries.

2

Research Questions
The research study seeks answers to the following questions :1. In what ways do TU Library System provide service to its users?
2. By individual group of users, in what ways do TU Library Systemprovide service to its users?
3. By individual group of users, which attributes of service quality equal,
exceed or fall short user perceptions?
4. By individual group of users, in what way do the users expect for
excellent service quality from TU Library system?
5. What are the dimensions that determine the customers’ evaluation ofservice quality in TU Library System
6. What are the most essential attributes that library managers shouldallocate the resources to support for improving excellent service quality?
7. What problems did the users encounter when involved in libraryservice?

Scope and Limitations
1. This study is conducted to assess the library service quality for the
purpose to help the library managers in understanding institutional and user
differences and similarities. The data collected should not be seen as value judgments
or as indicators or defining “good” or “bad” service.
2. The subjects in this study include 228 faculties/researchers, 165
graduate students, and 266 undergraduate students. The findings cannot be
generalized beyond TU.

3

Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature
Introduction
Academic libraries are facing two major threats : a global digital
environment and increasing competition. They must improve the quality of theirservices in order to survive. (Rowena Cullen, 2001) Traditionally, the quality of an
academic library has been described in terms of its collection and measured by thesize of the library’s holding and various counts of its use. ( Danuta A. Nitecki , 1996)
According to Peter Hernon and Ellen Altman , most of traditional statistics gatheredby libraries lack relevance and do not measure the library’s performance in terms ofelement important to customers. They do not really describe performance or indicate
whether service quality is good, indifferent, or bad. Even worse, the do not indicate
any action that the administration or any team could or should take to improve
performance. ( Perter Hernon & Ellen Altman , 1998) The need to understand what
library customers expect in terms of service quality is now necessary for goodmanagement. ( Philip Calvert, 2000) so the library managers should extend the
profitable way to assess library service quality. In business industries, SERVQUAL
is an alternative instrument proposed to measure service quality from customer
perspectives and perhaps it has been the most popular standardized questionnaire tomeasure service quality. ( Albert Caruna, Michael T. Ewing & B. Ramaseshan) In
the library setting, SERVQUAL was used to assess library quality service continuallyand it seems that culture of assessment in libraries had strong international dimensions
as there is much potential for international collaboration on assessing library service
quality. ( Martha Kyrillidou & Kaylyn Hipps,2000 ).
History of SERVQUALSERVQUAL was introduced in 1988 by A. Parasuraman , Valarie A.
Zeithaml and Leonard L. Berry as an instrument for assessing customer perceptionsof service quality in service and retailing organization. ( A. Parasuraman, et al.,1988) It was consisted of 22 pairs of statements ,the first of which measure theexpectations of a service provider’s customers by asking each respondent to rate, on aseven-point scale, how essential each item is for an excellent service provider todeliver. The second set to 22 identical statements ascertains the respondent’s
perceptions to the level of service given by the institution or organization examined.
For each pair of statements, the difference between the ranked perception and theranked expectation is calculated; the average of the gap scores is the SERVQUAL
overall quality score. ( Danuta A. Nitecki and Peter Hernon, 2000). The designers
also developed the Gaps model of service quality and the definitions of each of the
gap are as follows :Gap 1: The discrepancy between customers’ expectations and management’s
perceptions of these expectations;
Gap 2: The discrepancy between management’s perceptions of customers’
expectations and service quality specifications ;Gap 3: The discrepancy between service quality specifications and actual service
delivery;Gap 4: The discrepancy between actual service delivery and what is communicated tocustomers about it; andGap 5: The discrepancy between Customers’ expected services and perceived service
delivered.
The first four gaps are the major contributors to the service-quality gap
that customers may perceive. The fifth gap is the basis of a customer-oriented
definition of service quality: the discrepancy between customers’ expectations forexcellence, and their perceptions of actual service delivered. This discrepancy is theconceptual basis for the SERVQUAL instrument. ( Danuta A. Nitecki, 1996) The
narrower the gap is, the better service quality is provided so the managers have to
reduce Gap 5 as smallest as they can in order to provide excellent service to theircustomers.
To test the data by factor analysis, the designers concluded that
SERVQUAL was consisted of 5 dimensions as follows:
Tangibles :Physical facilities, equipment, an appearanceof personnel.

Reliability :Ability to perform the promised service dependably
and accurately.

Responsiveness :Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.

Assurance :Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire
trust and confidence.

Empathy :Caring, individualized attention the firm provides its customers.

Later, A. Parasuraman , Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry revised
SERVQUAL to ask respondents to rate statements from three contexts ( minimum
service expectations, desired service expectations, and the perception of service
performance) On a continuum, the minimum and desired service expectations appear
at either end, with the area in between known as the Zone of Tolerance. The zone oftolerance represents the range of service performance that customers consider
satisfactory. ( Peter Hernon, 2002) According to Johnson ( 1995) Berry andParasuraman defined the zone of tolerance in terms of the customer’s evaluation of inprocess service performances ( Robert Johnson, 1995) :The zone of tolerance is a range of service performance that a customer
considers satisfactory. A performance below the tolerance zone will engendercustomer frustration and decrease customer loyalty. A performance level above thetolerance zone will pleasantly surprise customers and strengthen their loyalty.
The importance of the zone of tolerance was clarified by Marketing
consultants for MCB University Press (2000) : Consumers have two different level of
expectations for service quality : desired level and one they find adequate. A “ Zoneof Tolerance ” separates the two. The managers should measure both levels of
expectations because the service providers can fine-tune the way they allocate
resources by incorporating the zone of tolerance framework. For example, a service
provider with limited resources can improve customers’ perceptions of service quality
by making improvements to meet consumer’s minimum expectation levels on themost essential attributes first. The service provider can then devote more resources
and attention to less essential attributes, and/or to better meeting desired standards.
SERVQUAL in Library Setting
The researchers of various subject areas contribute and adapt SERVQUAL
as the instrument to assess service quality and also in library setting. SERVQUAL has
been used in public, academic and research libraries continually. According to
Rowena Cullen ( See Cullen(2001), for a useful review) the modification of
SERVQUAL model was introduced to academic library managers by Hernon andAltman . They used the data collected from surveys and focus groups to refine the
SERVQUAL model in order to develop a robust survey instrument for use
specifically in library and information services. Two later research projects havetested the validity of the standard instrument used in the SERVQUAL model.
Nitecki’s doctoral research tested the SERVQUAL instrument on the three aspects oflibrary service- interlibrary loan, reference, and closed-reserve and concluded that the
instrument was useful in determining how well services match user expectations.
Hernon and Calvert tested the validity of the SERVQUAL instrument for evaluating
academic libraries among library students and librarians, and came up with an
instrument based on SERVQUAL.
Now, there is much potential for international collaboration on assessing
library service quality as seen from a cross-cultural study comparing perceptions ofservice quality among library users in New Zealand and China and unequivocallyconcluded that there are global commonalities in the way users think about libraryservice quality.( Kyrillidou and Hipps,2001)
Using SERVQUAL for Library Service Quality Assessment in Thailand
In Thailand, the first library service quality assessment by using
SERVQUAL was conducted by Surithong Srisa-ard (1997) for the fulfillment of her
doctoral dissertation “ User Expectations and Perceptions of Library Service Qualityof An Academic Library in Thailand” . The survey was set at an academic library at
Mahasarakham University (MSU) Thailand, to examined user expectations andperceptions of library service quality. The survey focused on three services areas :a) circulation; b) reference; and c) computer information service. The instrument is a
Thai translation of the SERVQUAL instrument as adapted by Danuta Ann Nitecki foruse in academic libraries. A follow-up survey of library staff based on the findings of
the SERVQUAL instrument was developed by the researcher to prioritize actions forservice improvement. The subjects of this study consisted of 582 graduate students,
84 faculty members of Mahasarakham University, and 25 professional library staff
members.
Presently, academic libraries in Thailand have faced the same situations as
most academic libraries in the world such as money cutback, digital environment, andhave to involve in some form of evaluation caused by the policy of the educational
quality assurance. The library managers have to seek the better way to improve theservice quality in order to survive and derive user’s loyalty.
Concept of Service quality for Library assessment
Service quality was defined in different ways but for the concept of service
quality that use for library evaluation is “ to examine the difference between acustomer’s expectations and the customer’s perceived sense to actual performance.”( Calvert, 2001) Philip J. Calvert and Peter Hernon also mentioned that :“Most typically, service quality is defined in terms of reducing the gap
between user expectations and actual service provided ” ( Philip J. Calvert
and Peter Hernon, 1997)
Though there is ambiguity between the concept of service quality andsatisfaction, Peter Hernon concluded that “ service quality focuses on the interaction
between customers and service providers, and the gap or difference between
expectations about service provision and perception about how the service wasactually provided. Satisfaction, on the other hand, does not involve gap analysis”(Peter Hernon, 2002)
According to Philip Calvert (2001), the precursors o service quality can be
configured as follows:
The customer
1. past experience of the customers:
2. word-of-mouth from other customers:
3. personal needs of the customer: and4. national culture of the customer:
The service provider:
5. Communications (direct and indirect) about what the customer can
expect.
Competitors:
6. service provided by other providers that acts as a benchmark.
Related Research
According to literature review of Surithong Srisa-ard’s doctoral
dissertation, the article “ Measuring Service Quality at Yale University’s Libraries ”
written by Danuta A. Nitecki and Peter Hernon as well as database searching( Dissertation Abstracts, EbscoHost Service, ScienceDirect , Ingenta, LISA ,and web
search) , the researchers in the field of library and information science used amodification of SERVQUAL as an alternative instrument for shifting the way ofassessing library service quality. Surithong Srisa-ard mentioned that :“ Library researchers have begun to use the SERVQUAL in their own
studies. Reviewing the literature on the SERVQUAL, Nitecki (1995) found that by1994 it had been introduced explicitly to the library field through at least four
empirical studies undertaken in public, special, and academic libraries and throughthree descriptive articles about service quality”
The former research results revealed the useful findings that provide theintellectual background for the present study as the followings :SERVQUAL Dimensions in Library setting
The research results from Danuta A. Nitecki’s doctoral dissertation (1995)
was shown that among the 5 dimensions of SERVQUAL, the users rated reliability
was most important and tangibles was least important. This finding is parallel tothose of Surithong Srisa-ard’s (1997) , Fawz S. Abdallah ’s (2002) as well as Ford’s(1994) which found that the users reported the high expectation on reliability. On thecontrary, the findings from the research project of Seay, Seaman and Cohen (1996)

was shown that tangibles and reliability were the key concerns of library patrons.
Anyway, most findings reflected that reliability is the most important quality inevaluating library services that is similar to the result which the designers of
SERVQUAL proposed.
For the number of SERVQUAL dimensions , there are empirical researchwhich examined dimensions of SERVQUAL instrument. To test the data of user
expectations by factor analysis, Nitecki’s data, however, suggest a three-factor
relationship among the 22 SERVQUAL items rather than the five collapsed
dimensions which the scale’s designers identify from other applications. As literature
review of Nitecki and Hernon in the article “Measuring Service Quality at Yale
University’s Libraries ” , the point of view of researchers cited in the review can beconcluded that “ there may be three dimensions in libraries, tangibles, reliability orservice efficiency , and affect of service, and that there is a need for further research
to explore the dimensions “ that may underlie quality service as a construct in the
research library setting. ” ( Nitecki& Hernon, 2000)
The dimensions of the LibQUAL+In October 1999, LibQUAL+ was developed to be a tool for libraryservice quality assessment by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). This new
tool is a derivative of the SERVQUAL protocol. Through the LibQUAL+. The
dimensions of the tools are as the followings :Affect of Service : it collapses three of the service dimensions identified
by SERVQUAL into one. These dimensions are Assurance, Empathy, and Reliability.
Reliability : Ability to perform the promised service dependably
and accurately.
Access to Information : the access was ensured through the provision ofcomprehensive collections and ubiquity of access or the provision by all means
possible of barrier-free access to information at the time of need.
Library as Place : the ability to meet community requirements forutilitarian space for study, collaboration, or rendezvous.
The concept about Library as Place is oftentimes especially important forundergraduates whose options are more limited than graduate students and faculties
Self-reliance : the ability to foster self reliant information seeking
behavior through instruction, mentoring, signage and other means.
(Colleen Cook, et al.,2001)

Users’ Expectation Examination Related to National Culture
Philip J. Calvert (2001) studied the customer expectations in thecomparative research project “ International Variations in Measuring Customer
Expectations ” which examined the expectation between the library users in New
Zealand and China. ( library and information studies (LIS) students at Peking
University in China and Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand ) The datasuggested that “ academic library users have very similar expectations of services”
Three dimensions that concern staff attitudes, the library environment, and services
that help the customers to find and use the library’s material efficiently are found inboth studies. Remarkably, the users from both countries prefer to work on their own
without personal contact. The library should make its service readily available whenthe customer wants them, and offering the collection in good order that matches thecustomer’s need. The result from the secondary project which examined the user
attitudes of both countries revealed that national culture does not seem to be a major
precursor of attitudes to service quality.
Related Research in Thailand
Surithong Srisa-ard (1997) used the modification of SERVQAUL toassess the user expectations and perceptions in three service areas ( circulation,reference and computer information service ) at the Academic Resource Center( AREC) library at Maharakham University (MSU) in the fall of 1996 and the springof 1997. First, samples were the faculty and graduate students of MSU were asked tocomplete a Thai translation of SERVQUAL instrument as modified by Nitecki(1995).Second, all librarians and staff members of AREC were asked to complete anaccompanying questionnaire, designed by the researcher to interpret the survey resultsin terms of the priority actions they suggest for the improvement of services of AREC
library users. This study is the only one SERVQUAL replication applied withacademic library service quality assessment in Thailand so the findings are useful forbeing an intellectual background for the present study but there are some differences
between the two research projects in detail as shown in the following table :characteristics
x The services
covered in thestudies

Surithong Srisa-ard’s
x Circulation,reference, computer
information service

The present study
x Overall servicesx

Samplesx

Graduate students,
faculty members, andlibrary staffxx

SERVQUALmodelx

3 sections :Section A: twocolumn format
questionnaire(expectations andperceptions ) with 22
statements, Section
B: To ask the users
to allocate 100 point
among 5 dimension,and Section C : To
ask the users toindicate the most andleast importantdimensionsx

Undergraduate,
graduate students,and faculty
members/researchers
Three column format(minimum service
adequacy,
expectations, andperceptions) with 29
statements which
complete by all
respondent groups

The findings can be summarized into the following aspects :On most of the SERVQUAL statements, user expectations for service
quality lagged behind user expectations of actual service quality. When looking at thesize of the expectation-perception gaps, faculty members appeared to desire
improvements in the updating of equipment and in the promptness, sincerity ,knowledge-ability, and degree of understanding with which staff assist users.
Graduate students had the same concerns, though they are generally more critical of
the library in terms of the number of SERVQUAL statements for which mean
expectation rating exceeded mean perception ratings. Unlike the faculty, students
indicated that their expectations for physical facilities, the visual appearance of librarymaterials, the neatness of employees, operating hours and the personal attention staff
give to users were not met. Among 5 dimensions of service quality, the findings
suggested that the AREC library users place a premium on the non- tangible aspectsof service, particularly reliability and responsiveness.
For conducting the research in Thai context, Surithong Srisa-ard foundsome interesting aspects such as the much difference of treatment that library staff did
between faculty members and students , as well as the different interpretation withsome statements in SERVQUAL.
SERVQUAL Questionnaire of the Present Study
For the present study, the modification of SERVQUAL questionnaire
used in 2 universities in Japan (1 national, 1 private) , and one university each in
England and Finland was adopted . The SERVQUAL questionnaires .( see AppendixA) were distributed to each respondent group of Thammasat University Library
System. The users were asked to complete the questionnaires with three levels ofservices : minimum service , desired service, and perceived service. There are 7 pointscale and 29 statements are arranged at random.

Chapter 3
Methods and ProceduresThis chapter explains the methods used in carrying out the study, giving
special emphasis to the treatment and techniques used to analyze data. This survey
was conducted at one of the most important academic library system in Thailand,
Thammasat University Library System during August 20 – October 10, 2002. The
randomly selected respondents were asked to complete the modification of
SERVQUAL questionnaires. A pretest was managed to make the statements
understandable in Thai context. Data was gathered over 6 weeks and the second
copy of questionnaires were mailed to the non-respondents who are lecturers. Afterthat data was gathered and treated properly. The regulations were set to validate data
treatment.
This chapter explains the procedures, instrumentation, sampling, data
treatment, data analysis and techniques used in conducting research.
Instrumentation
The selected sample groups were asked to complete the SERVQUAL
instrument (Appendix A ). The instrument is divided into 2 sections. The first one
asked about background information such as personal information, major subject area,
faculties, as well as experience related to using library services. The second one is 29
statement questionnaire which asks users to rate the 3 service levels : minimum
service adequacy, desired services, and perceptions of actual service performance
which each rating prioritized by 7 point- scale.
The SERVQUAL instrument was translated into Thai by the researcher.
For the validation of the translation, Miss Yoopin Claymon , a specialist researcher
and linguist of the East Asian Studies Institute, Thammasat University checked forthe meaning and commented some statements that give ambiguous meanings. After
that, the edited version was re-examined by a lecturer of Department of Thai
Language for giving comment for language usage
As pretest, The Thai version of SERVQUAL instrument was completed by
4 lecturers, 1 researcher, and 3 students of Thammasat University. Some services
specified in the statements have to be giving more detail such as statements no. 12 “Timely document delivery ” and no. 16 “ Access to digital collections from PC”. The
researcher added more detail in those statements such as what are “Document
delivery ” and “ Digital Collections ” as the result from a pretest shown that someusers exploited those services but don’t realize the technical terms used. . To avoid
misunderstanding while filling the questionnaire as the three column format
SERVQUAL model was quite new to Thai respondents, an instruction sheet was
attached with the copy of mailed instrument.
Sampling and Response Rates
The Samples
The samples in this study are the four groups of users of Thammasat
University Library System at Prachand and Rangsit Campus. The name list of student
samples ( undergraduate and graduate students ) were prepared by the programmer of11the Office of the Registrar through a computer random sampling. For faculty andresearcher samples, the researcher prepared from “ Thammasat Directory 2002”.Only the researcher samples , the complete survey was used. The representative
samples of 2,139 users from each groups of users were targeted for participation inthis study. The detail for sampling of each selected groups is shown in Table 3.1
Table 3.1
Sampling Methods
Selected Sample Groups

Methods

Students ( Graduate andUndergraduate)

Computer Random

Faculty members

Lottery Method

Researchers **Complete survey** As there are only 24 researchers belong to Thammasat University
The Returned Questionnaires from Each Respondent Groups
The 2,139 printed questionnaires were distributed to the 4 groups ofsample users by mail (both campus mail and Thai mail with postage provided) during
August 20 – October 10, 2002 . A total of 661 usable questionnaires were received.
The overall response rate was 30.90 % that can be summarized in the table 3.2
Table 3.2
Returned by Each Respondent Groups
Respondent groups
Undergrad. Student
Grad. Student
Faculty
Researchers
Unknown
Total

Delivered

Returned% Returned

824
664
627
24

266
165
216

32.28
24.84
34.45
45.83

0

11
3

0.00

2,139

661

30.90

Data Treatment
After gathering the questionnaires , the survey data was key in Excel file.
Before transferring to SPSS version 11.0,the following procedures of data treatment
were set to validate the data for further analysis :The processes of checking error :1. Checking error because of wrong input.
x Check data input by comparing with the original
copies of questionnaires.
12

x Correct the wrong records.
2. Checking the gap differences among the following sections:x DEs (Desired service) - MEs (Minimum service)
which is called “Zone of Tolerance” (The area
between minimally acceptable and desired service
quality rating) . DEs must be higher than MEs or
can be at the same level. If the value in DEs isminus, it means erroneous occurrence caused by the
response in the MEs section is higher than DEs.
x Ps (Perceived service) - MEs (Minimum service)
If values from P1-29 – ME1-29 are all 0s , it means
the values in each section are the same so thatrecord has to be checked and modified if necessary.
x Ps (Perceived service) - DEs ( Desired service)
The gap difference between these two sections will
help the administrators to provide excellent services
so if the values from Ps – DEs are all 0s or too
much gap difference , the record has to be checked
and modified if necessary.
** If the response in any record is blank , it means the following cases
appear in either section : 1. duplicate answers (9) 2. no reply (0) or 3. No comment(N=8) in P section
The errors mentioned above have to be modified. Thus, the following
regulations were applied for survey data modification :Regulation for Survey Data Modification
1. If all of the values (ME1-29, DE1-29, and P1-29) are same, then delete this answer.
Example :ME1-29 77777777777777777777777777777
DE1-29 77777777777777777777777777777
P1-29 77777777777777777777777777777
2. If the values in MEs and DEs are same, then change ME1-29 to 9 and keep DE1-29
without modification.
ME1-29 77777777777777777777777777777
DE1-29 77777777777777777777777777777
P1-29 76547654125785643725864555543

3. If the values in each section (MEs, DEs, and Ps) are same, then delete this answer.
ME1-29 11111111111111111111111111111
DE1-29 77777777777777777777777777
P1-29 44444444444444444444444444
4. If the zone of tolerance (DE – ME) is negative, then counterchange DE and ME .
ME1 6 -> 4
DE1 4 -> 6

13

Characteristics of Sample Groups
Of 661 respondents , more than a half are female ( 63%) ( seeTable 3.3) and the majorities of the respondents are students : undergraduate 40.2%
and graduate students 25 % ( see Table 3.4)
Table 3. 3
Sex of the Respondents
femalemale
Total
unknown

Frequency
411
241
652
9

Valid Percent
63.0
37.0
100

Total

661

100

Table 3.4
Categories of Respondent Groups

Undergraduate
Student
Graduate Student
Faculty/Researcher
Unknown
Total

Frequency
266

Valid Percent
40.2

165
228
2
661

25.0
34.5
.3
100

For graduate students, most are studying in the master degree level(93.9%) but for the undergraduate, the proportions of each year are slightly different.
(see Table 3.5 and 3.6).
Table 3.5
Categories for Graduate Students

Master degree
Doctoral degree
Diploma
Total

Frequency
155
4
6

Valid Percent
93.9
2.4
3.6

165

100

14

Table 3.6
Categories for Undergraduate Students

1st year
2nd year
3rd year
4th year
5th year
6th year
Total

Frequency
79
58
51
70
7
1

Valid Percent
29.7
21.8
19.2
26.3
2.6
.4

266

100

For lecturer/ researcher respondents, nearly half (48.7%) haveacademic positions as “Lecturer” and the rest indicated their academic positions as“ Assist. Professor” and “ Assoc. Professor ”. There are only 24 researchers
belong to TU so it is not surprising that the proportion of researcher respondents
is only 4.8% (see Table 3.7). For age groups of lecturer/researcher groups, overhalf fell into the categories “ 26-35 year old and 36- 45 year old “ which reflected
60. 4% of all and only 3.1 % indicated the category “ less than 25 ”. (see Table
3.8) . For consideration in terms of academic positions and age groups, it seems
that most lecturer and researcher respondents are new generation which maybe
associate with library remote access.
Table 3.7
Categories for Faculty/Researcher

Lecturer
Assist. Prof.
Assoc. Prof.
Researcher
Total

Frequency
111
67
39
11

Valid Percent
48.7
29.4
17.1
4.8

228

100

Table 3.8
Age Groups (Faculty/Researcher)less than 25 yrs.
26-35 yrs.
36-45 yrs.
46-55 yrs.
more than 55
yrs.
Total

Frequency
7
68
68
60
22

Valid Percent
3.1
30.2
30.2
26.7
9.8

225

100

15

As most subject-based service provided by Thammasat
University cover social science and humanities area so more than half of respondents
indicated their major subject areas as social sciences (48.5%) and humanities( 20.8%) (see Table 3.9)

Table 3.9
Major Subject Areas

Humanities
Social Science
ScienceEngineering
Health Science
Othersduplicate answer
Total
Unknown
Total

Frequency
136
317
77
48
63
10
2
653
8

Valid Percent
20.8
48.5
11.8
7.4
9.6
1.5
.3
100

661

100

Pridi Bhanomyong Library which is the main library at PrachanCampus and Faculty libraries are the two most frequently used libraries. Over half of
respondents (70.3 %) have used these libraries as the important learning resources.
(see Table 3.10) It is an interesting point as the data suggests that faculty libraries arealso the important resources for TU community.
Table 3.10
Library (most frequently use)
TU Library,Rangsit Campus
PrideePhanomyong
Library
Faculty Libraries
duplicate answer
Total
Unknown
Total

Frequency
170

Valid Percent
25.9

230

35.1

231
25
656
5

35.2
3.8
100.0

661

100

For the frequency of library use, over a half of samples have used the libraries
frequently. There are only 8.6 % fall into the category “ 1 or less for three months ”(see Table 3.11) On the contrary, about half of the samples ( 50.9 %) indicated thatthey never use library remote service (Table 3.12 ). It means that most samples
accessed the libraries’ buildings directly. Actually, TU Library System has provided
remote access service for Online Public Access Catalog System ( OPAC ) and digitalcollections but the data suggests that the proportion of remote users is still low.

16

Table 3.11
Frequency of Library use
2 or more times aweekonce every 2 or 3
weeks
1 or less for threemonthsonce a week
once a month
Total

Frequency
218

Valid Percent
33.3

110

16.8

56

8.6

171
99
654

26.1
15.1
100

Unknown

7

Total

661

100

Table 3.12
Frequency of remote use of all users

Frequency
2 or moretimes a week
once every 2
or 3 weeks
1 or less forthree months
once a week
once a month
never

Valid Percent
60

9.3

52

8.0

85

13.1

62
59
330

9.6
9.1
50.9

Total
Unknown

648
13

100

Total

661

For frequency of remote use by individual user group, about a half of eachuser group use remote access while the percentage of the most frequent use ( 2 ormore times a week) is very low ( see Table 3.13 – Table 3.15). It is interesting thatthe percentage of non user in graduate student group (which most are young
generation) is more than a half ( 59.1%) ( see Table 3.14). For undergraduate
student group, it seems that they access remote service more often than other groupsdo. ( see Table 3.15)

17

Frequency of remote use by individual user group
Table 3.13
Facutly/Researcher

2 or more times aweekonce every 2 or 3
weeks
1 or less for threemonthsonce a week
once a month
never
Total
Unknown
Total

Frequency
18

Valid Percent
8.2

22

10.0

33

15.0

27
22
98
220
8
228

12.3
10.0
44.5
100.0

Table 3.14
Graduate Students
2 or moretimes aweek
once every
2 or 3weeks
1 or lessfor threemonthsonce aweek
once a
month
never
Total
Unknown
Total

Frequency
7

Valid Percent
4.3

8

4.9

26

15.9

8

4.9

18

11.0

97
164
1
165

59.1
100.0

18

Table 3.15
Undergraduate students

2 or moretimes a week
once every 2
or 3 weeks
1 or less forthree months
once a week
once a month
never
Total
Unknown

Frequency Valid Percent
35
13.3

Total

22

8.3

26

9.8

27
19
135
264
2
266

10.2
7.2
51.1
100.0

Number of Respondents Compared with Total TU Library Users
To compare the number of respondents with total library users of TU Library
System, the respondents are 2.37 % of the total users (faculty member, researcher,
graduate and undergraduate student ). The highest proportion is researcher group as
there are only 24 researchers belong to TU. For faculty member group, the data
reflects 17.79% of all. For graduate and undergraduate groups, the data reflects 2.58
% and 1.36% respectively. (see Table 3.16)
Table 3.16
Number of selected respondents compare with total TU population(Based on information of the year 2002)

Types of Population

Population

Respondents%

Faculty
Researcher
Graduate student

1,220
24
6,396

217
11
165

17.79
45.83
2.58

Undergraduate student
Unknown
Total

20,261

266
2
661

1.36

27,901

2.37

In the present study, the percentage of faculty respondent group comparewith faculty population is 17.79% ( see Table 3.17) and it is not surprising that most
respondents (48.7%) have academic position as “Lecturer” because “ Lecturer”
position occupied 51.7% of all TU lecturers. (Thammasat University Yearbook 2002,
52)

19

Table 3.17
Academic position of faculty respondents compare with total faculty population(Based on information of the year 2002)

Academic position
Professor
Associate Prof.
Assistant Prof.
Lecturer
Total

Total no.(% )No. ofRespondents/%%

14 (01.1%)
229(18.8%)346(28.4%)631(51.7%)
1,220(100%)00(00.0%)39(17.1%)
67(29.4%)
111(48.7%)
217(100%)

00.00
17.03
19.36
17.59
17.79

The Frequencies of User Responses for Each Level of Service
The frequencies of user responses for each level of service are shownin Table 3.18 – Table 3.20. All attributes are ranked respectively by missing value as
it will be supported information when doing data analysis. It is interesting that, mosthigher orders of missing values in each level are very similar and most attributes are
related to staff attributes. It is possible that some respondents seldom contacted
library staff , don’t use reference services, or don’t ask reference questions in order tofind needed information when they accessed library services so highly missing values
are occurred in “Actual service perceptions” related to staff attributes. The
respondents leave blank in the attributes “ Providing service as the promise time” “
Performing services right the first time” “ Dependability in handing user’s questions”“ Library staff with the knowledge to answer user’s questions ”, etc.. ( see Table 3.20)
because they don’t know how to evaluate library staff. The missing values of
Minimum Service and Desired Service perceptions ( see Table 3.18 and Table 3.19)
are less than those in Actual Service Perceptions because the respondents can expect
what they want, though they don’t experience in their real usage. For the attributes“ Timely document delivery ” and “Access to digital collections from PC ” which areappeared at the top five of every level, it is possible to conclude that the respondents
never use or don’t know that these 2 services are available. The data is associatedwith the number of the respondents who access library remote service. About half ofthe respondents ( 50.9%) have never used it. (see Table 3.12).

20

Table 3.18
Frequency of User Responses for Minimum Service Expectation (Ranked by missing
value)
Statements
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

Timely document delivery
Providing services at the promised time
Performing services right the first time
Access to digital collections from PC
Providing services as promised
Instruction in use and/or training
sessions, when needed
Readiness to respond to user's
questions
Library staff with the knowledge toanswer user's questions
Dependability in handling user's
service problems
Keeping users informed about whenservices will be performed
Assuring users of the accuracy andconfidentialityof their personal information/data
Library staff who understand the needsof their users
Library staff who instill confidence inusers
A place for reflection and creativity
Giving users individual attention
Visually appealing materials (such as
pamphlets, statements
or signs) associated with the service
Expect to find information and new
ideas
Modern equipment
Willingness to help users
Space that enables quiet study
Library staff who deal with users in aconcerned or considerate fashion
A comfortable and inviting location
Convenient access to librarycollections
Prompt service to users
Convenient opening hours
Library staff who are always courteous
Availability of required information
Having the users' best interests at heart
Visually appealing facilities

N
Mean Median Mode SD
Valid Missing
589
4.51
5
5 1.09
72
592
4.60
5
5 1.12
69
604
4.65
5
5 1.16
57
606
4.49
5
5 1.24
55
610
4.63
5
5 1.15
51
610

51

4.39

4

5 1.20

613

48

4.55

5

4 1.19

614

47

4.81

5

5 1.19

614

47

4.67

5

5 1.09

617

44

4.70

5

4 1.15

619

42

4.96

5

5 1.22

622

39

4.61

5

5 1.18

623
623
625

38
38
36

4.42
4.88
4.33

5
5
4

5 1.145 1.214 1.14

625

36

4.40

4

4 1.17

625
626
628
629

36
35
33
32

4.77
4.62
4.73
4.97

5
5
5
5

5
5
5
5

629
632

32
29

4.71
4.56

5
5

5 1.145 1.11

632
632
633
633
635
638
638

29
29
28
28
26
23
23

4.60
4.50
4.61
4.55
4.52
4.58
4.53

5
5
5
5
5
5
5

5
5
5
5
5
5
5

21

1.23
1.13
1.18
1.19

1.09
1.09
1.12
1.14
1.02
1.12
1.11

Table 3.19
Frequency of User Responses for Desired Service Expectation(Ranked by missing value)
Statements
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6

7

8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

Timely document delivery
Providing services at the promised time
Access to digital collections from PC
Performing services right the first time
Providing services as promised
Instruction in use and/or training
sessions,
when needed
Library staff with the knowledge toansweruser's questions
Readiness to respond to user's
questions
Dependability in handling user's
service problems
Keeping users informed about whenservices will be performed
Assuring users of the accuracy andconfidentiality of their personal
information/data
Library staff who understand the needsof their users
Library staff who instill confidence inusers
A place for reflection and creativity
Modern equipment
Giving users individual attention
Visually appealing materials(such as pamphlets, statements orsigns)
associated with the service
Willingness to help users
Prompt service to users
Library staff who deal with users in aconcerned or considerate fashion
Convenient opening hours
Convenient access to librarycollections
Space that enables quiet study
Expect to find information and new
ideas
Library staff who are always courteous
Visually appealing facilities
Availability of required information
A comfortable and inviting location
Having the users' best interests at heart

N
Valid Missing Mean Median Mode SD
596
5.84
6
6 0.98
65
597
5.90
6
6 0.95
64
610
5.89
6
6 1.06
51
610
5.99
6
6 0.99
51
615
5.97
6
7 0.99
46

615

46

5.71

6

6 1.07

618

43

6.15

6

7 0.93

618

43

5.96

6

6 1.00

620

41

5.95

6

6 0.96

623

38

5.91

6

6 0.98

625

36

6.14

6

7 0.96

627

34

5.95

6

6 1.00

629
629
631
632

32
32
30
29

5.84
6.30
6.00
5.65

6
7
6
6

6
7
6
6

632
634
635

29
27
26

5.76
6.10
6.03

6
6
6

6 1.06
7 0.95
6 0.96

635
636

26
25

6.09
6.04

6
6

6 0.95
6 0.90

636
636

25
25

6.13
6.32

6
7

6 0.897 0.86

636
638
640
641
641
642

25
23
21
20
20
19

6.16
5.97
6.09
6.08
6.02
6.02

6
6
6
6
6
6

7
6
6
6
6
6

22

0.95
0.87
0.97
1.06

0.97
0.96
0.96
0.88
0.90
0.97

Table 3.20
Frequency of User Responses for Actual Service Perceptions(Ranked by missing value)
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

Statements
Timely document delivery
Providing services at the promised
time
Access to digital collections from PC
Instruction in use and/or training
sessions, when needed
Performing services right the firsttime
Dependability in handling user's
service problems
Readiness to respond to user's
questions
Providing services as promised
Library staff with the knowledge toanswer user's questions
Library staff who understand theneeds of their users
Keeping users informed about whenservices will be performed
Expect to find information and new
ideas
Library staff who instill confidence
in users
Assuring users of the accuracy andconfidentiality of their personal
information/data
Giving users individual attention
Visually appealing materials (such as
pamphlets, statements or signs)
associated with the service
Willingness to help users
Library staff who deal with users in aconcerned or considerate fashion
A place for reflection and creativity
Modern equipment
Library staff who are always
courteous
Prompt service to users
Space that enables quiet study
Having the users' best interests atheart
Convenient opening hours
Convenient access to librarycollections
Availability of required information
A comfortable and inviting location
Visually appealing facilities

Mean Median Mode SD
No.
Valid Missing
477
4.64
5
5 1.14
184
522
523

139
138

4.96
4.36

5
4

5 1.164 1.42

548

113

4.46

4

4 1.35

562

99

4.92

5

5 1.23

570

91

4.90

5

5 1.20

574
575

87
86

4.80
4.77

5
5

5 1.285 1.17

579

82

5.17

5

5 1.17

581

80

4.62

5

5 1.32

585

76

5.03

5

6 1.31

595

66

4.82

5

5 1.23

598

63

4.73

5

5 1.19

600
615

61
46

5.28
4.52

5
5

6 1.334 1.33

617
619

44
42

4.71
4.90

5
5

5 1.315 1.40

622
623
625

39
38
36

4.85
4.91
4.96

5
5
5

5 1.35
5 1.375 1.14

634
635
635

27
26
26

4.84
4.77
5.02

5
5
5

5 1.305 1.26
6 1.34

638
639

23
22

4.83
5.18

5
5

5 1.33
6 1.23

641
642
643
647

20
19
18
14

5.02
4.73
5.27
4.95

5
5
5
5

5
5
6
5

23

1.23
1.17
1.23
1.30

The orders of missing values among 3 levels are not too different as shown in
Table 3.21. Each missing values are in neighboring order so it is possible that if the
respondents don’t experience in any attributes, they leave them blank in the level of“Actual service perceptions” and tend to do in the similar way for the rest levels.
Table 3.21
Comparison of the orders of missing values among 3 levels of quality service
expectations

Order of Missing
Values
DE
ME
P
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
6
6
5
4
3
6
9
9
7
8
7
8
5
5
9
7
8
10
12
12
11
10
10
24
13
11

17
13
11

12
13
14

16
17

15
16

15
16

18
20

19
21

17
18

14
15
25
19
23
29
21
22
27
28
26

14
18
26
24
20
28
25
23
27
22
29

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

Statements

Timely document delivery
Providing services at the promised time
Access to digital collections from PC
Instruction in use and/or training sessions, when needed
Performing services right the first time
Dependability in handling user's service problems
Readiness to respond to user's questions
Providing services as promised
Library staff with the knowledge to answer user's questions
Library staff who understand the needs of their users
Keeping users informed about when services will be
performed
Expect to find information and new ideas
Library staff who instill confidence in users
Assuring users of the accuracy and confidentiality of theirpersonal information/data
Giving users individual attention
Visually appealing materials (such as pamphlets,statements or signs) associated with the service
Willingness to help users
Library staff who deal with users in a concerned orconsiderate fashion
A place for reflection and creativity
Modern equipment
Library staff who are always courteous
Prompt service to users
Space that enables quiet study
Having the users' best interests at heart
Convenient opening hours
Convenient access to library collections
Availability of required information
A comfortable and inviting location
Visually appealing facilities

24

Statistical Method and Techniques Used for Data Analysis
After data treatment, the data was transferred to SPSS Version 11.0 and do
statistical analysis in order to accomplish the purposes of the study. The data will beanalyzed in the following ways. First, to elicit in what way the TU Library Systemprovided service to its users, the gap discrepancy between desired service and actual
service performance will be calculated and ranked respectively.
Second, to examine in what way TU Library System provided service to its
individual group of user , the gap discrepancy between desired service and actual
service performance will be calculated by individual group of users and ranked
respectively. This result can suggest what service meet, exceed or fall short into theuser expectations.
Third, to investigate which dimensions that determine the customers’
evaluation of service quality in TU Library System, factor analysis will be applied .
The data will be useful for the library managers in terms of management the service
planning what they should do urgently.
Fourth, to investigate which are the most essential attributes that librarymanager should allocate the resource for good service quality, the “Zone ofTolerance” which is the range between desired service expectation and minimum
service adequacy will be calculated.
Finally, the open-ended questions will be categorized, counted, and ranked
respectively as the data will suggest what problems the users encountered when they
involved in library service.

25

Chapter 4
Data Analysis
To assess the service quality of TU Library system, the adaptation of
SERVQUAL questionnaires were distributed to the target groups by mail. The
respondents were asked to rate each attribute of service quality 3 times in the threecolumns : minimum service level , desired service level , and perception of actual
service level. The scales used were 7 point scale which ordered from 1“lowest ” to 7
“ highest ” .
This chapter reports the study results which will answer the 6 researchquestions. The 7 research questions are as the followings :1. In what ways do TU Library System provide service to its users ?
2. By individual group of users, in what ways do TU Library Systemprovide service to its users?
3. By individual group of users, which attributes of service quality equal,
exceed or fall short user perceptions ?
For these 3 research questions, the gap difference between desired service
level and actual service perceptions as well as a paired sample t-test will becalculated.
4. By individual group of users, in what way do the users expect for
excellent service quality from TU Library system ?
The means of desired service expectations will be ranked and comparedamong 3 groups of users.
5. What are the dimensions that determine the customers’ evaluation ofservice quality of TU Library System?
Factor analysis methods will be applied to investigate the dimensions ofservice quality. The results can be supported information for the library managers toconvert the theory into practical resources allocation decisions (Philip J. Calvert,
2001)
6. What are the most essential attributes that library managers shouldallocated the resources to support for improving excellent service quality?
The “ Zone of Tolerance ” which is the range between desired service
expectation and minimum service expectation will be calculated to find such
attributes.
7. What problems did the users encounter when involved in libraryservices?
To investigate the problems users encountered when involved in libraryservice, the open ended comments will be counted and classified by categories.
What are the gaps between user desired service expectations and actual
service perception ?
As the gap discrepancy between desired service expectation and perceptionof actual service is the key concept of service quality so the gaps difference between
the two levels of service expectations were calculated and ranked order by gap size.
The result from Table 4.1 reveals that all attributes of service quality
don’t meet the users’ expectations. The reason is like Surithong Srisa-ard mentioned
in her doctoral thesis :“It is natural tendency of people to wish for more than they have ”

26The larger gaps are the attributes that related to materials, study
environment and staff attributes. The result reflects that the attributes related todimensions “ Collection & Access ” and “Library as Place ” occupied among the top
five ranking. The gap differences related to staff attributes ( Empathy &Responsiveness) are ranked respectively behind the “ Collection & Access” and“ Library as Place”. It seems that “Tangibles” dimension is not problematic as the
gap rank is quite low. It is interesting that the attribute “A comfortable and inviting
location” is at the lowest rank which is contradictory to the aforementioned ranking.
It seems that the libraries are comfortable and inviting but too noisy and don’t haveenough space for quiet study.
For the attribute related to “ Reliability ” dimension, the most problematic
attribute is “ Providing services as promise”, For the rest attributes, the gaps are not
too large.

27

Table 4.1
Gap Difference between Desired Service Expectation and Perceived Service
Expectation (Order by Gap size)
Rank
Order
By
Gap
size
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

Statements

Mean
diff.

Access to digital collections from PC

1.58

A place for reflection and creativity

1.39

Availability of required information

1.37

Expect to find information and new ideas
Library staff who understand the needs of their users

1.37
1.33

Instruction in use and/or training sessions, when needed

1.29

Dimensions
Collection&
Access
Library as
Place
Collection &AccessCollection &AccessEmpathyCollection&
Access
Library as
Place
ResponsivenessSpace that enables quiet study
Prompt service to users
Library staff who deal with users in a concerned or considerate
Empathy
fashionResponsiveness Willingness to help users
Empathy
Having the users' best interests at heart
Reliability
Providing services as promised
Collection &AccessTimely document delivery
Responsiveness Readiness to respond to user's questions
Empathy
Giving users individual attention
Tangibles
Visually appealing facilities
Assurance
Library staff who are always courteous
Assurance
Library staff who instill confidence in users
Collection&
AccessConvenient access to library collections
Reliability
Performing services right the first time
Reliability
Dependability in handling user's service problems
Visually appealing materials (such as pamphlets, statements or
Tangibles
signs) associated with the service
Tangibles
Modern equipment
Assurance
Library staff with the knowledge to answer user's questions
Reliability
Providing services at the promised time
Responsiveness Keeping users informed about when services will be performed
Assuring users of the accuracy and confidentiality of their
Assurance
personal information/data
Empathy
Convenient opening hours
Library as
Place
A comfortable and inviting location

28

1.28
1.25
1.24
1.20
1.20
1.19
1.19
1.17
1.16
1.15
1.15
1.12
1.11
1.07
1.06
1.04
1.04
0.97
0.93
0.89
0.87
0.86
0.75

By individual group of users, what are the gaps between user desired
service expectations and actual service perception ?
The result reveals that by individual group of user, all desired service
expectations are lagged behind the actual service perception. (see Table 4.2, 4.4 and4.6) When the gap sizes were ranked by order, there are similarities between
faculty/researcher group and graduate student group ( see Table 4.3 & Table 4.5) The
ranks of gap differences for dimensions “ Collection &Access” and ”Library as Place” are at the top five. On the contrary, for undergraduate student group, the dimensions
related to library staff attributes ( “Responsiveness ”, “ Empathy”, and “Assurance” )are at the top five.
For faculty/researcher group and graduate student group, the largest gap isthe same attribute “Access to digital collection from PC ” and the top five gaps arevery similar. If we consider the frequency of remote access use of these 2 groups, ahalf of the respondents never use remote access service (see Table 3.12) and byindividual group, about a half of each group never use remote access either (see Table
3.13 – Table 3.15) This result can be anticipated in many ways such as most users
have to access digital collection within library building, never use this service at all,or don’t know that the services are available.
For the attributes that related to staff attributes, it is interesting that in theperspectives of each user group the rank are different. For faculty/researcher group,
the gap differences are not too large and most are at the low rank. ( see Table 4.3) For
graduate student group, the staff attributes are ranked behind the physical attributes :especially the dimension “Empathy” (see Table 4.5) For undergraduate group, it
seems that the gap differences are larger than those of other groups.( see Table 4.7)
Anyway, in the perspectives of undergraduate student group, the dimension “ Libraryas Place ”and “ Collection&Access” are problematic as they are ranked at the higher
orders and the gap differences are large. It seems library staff treat thefaculty/researcher different from students.

29

Table 4.2
Faculty/Researcher (t-test)
Statements
1.Availability of required information
2.Convenient opening hours
3.A comfortable and inviting location
4.Having the users' best interests at heart
5.Convenient access to library collections
6.Prompt service to users
7.Visually appealing facilities
8.Library staff who are always courteous
9.Giving users individual attention
10.Space that enables quiet study
11.Modern equipment
12.Timely document delivery
13.Keeping users informed about whenservices will be performed
14.Assuring users of the accuracy andconfidentiality of their personal
information/data
15.Visually appealing materials (such as
pamphlets, statements or signs) associatedwith the service
16.Access to digital collections from PC
17.Providing services as promised
18.Willingness to help users
19.Instruction in use and/or training
sessions, when needed
20.Library staff who understand the needsof their users
21.Library staff who instill confidence inusers
22.Providing services at the promised time
23.Library staff with the knowledge toanswer user's questions
24.Performing services right the first time
25.Dependability in handling user's service
problems
26.Expect to find information and new ideas
27.Readiness to respond to user's questions
28.A place for reflection and creativity
29.Library staff who deal with users in aconcerned or considerate fashionx

Expectation
Score
Mean
6.07
6.01
6.01
6.08
6.20
6.00
6.04
6.12
5.81
6.30
6.03
6.02

Mean
Diff.

t

SD

0.91
0.89
0.94
1.00
0.86
0.98
1.00
0.87
0.94
0.82
0.94
0.81

Perception
Score
Mean
4.81
5.15
5.15
5.22
5.16
5.06
4.87
5.30
4.95
4.94
4.87
4.81

1.17
1.32
1.24
1.19
1.26
1.27
1.29
1.15
1.27
1.29
1.14
1.12

1.26
0.86
0.86
0.85
1.04
0.94
1.18
0.82
0.86
1.35
1.16
1.21

13.42*
8.40*
8.99*
9.68*
11.04*
10.48*
11.29*
9.49*
8.67*
13.76*
11.91*
10.78*

6.05 0.95

5.18

1.30

0.87

8.37*

6.23 0.87

5.41

1.29

0.82

8.67*

5.91
6.17
6.05
6.15

4.67 1.26
4.47 1.48
4.88 1.16
5.29 1.34

1.25 12.26*
1.70 12.84*
1.17 11.20*
0.86 8.21*

5.90 1.02

4.78

1.41

1.13 10.09*

6.01 0.95

4.87

1.33

1.14 10.29*

5.90 0.97
6.02 0.94

4.97 1.20
5.09 1.13

0.93 10.02*
0.93 9.90*

6.18 0.93
5.98 0.92

5.40
5.16

0.77
0.83

6.00
6.19
6.01
6.23

5.08 1.16
4.84 1.28
5.07 1.27
4.75 1.40

0.92 9.53*
1.36 13.22*
0.94 9.42*
1.48 13.36*

5.17

0.95

SD

0.99
0.94
0.95
0.90

0.89
0.95
0.97
0.95

6.13 0.90

1.15
1.15

1.30

* Note p < . 05

30

9.14*
8.36*

9.88*

Table 4.3
Gap differences between desired expectations and actual service perceptions
Faculty/Researcher ranked by Gap size
Rank
Order
Dimensions
by
Gap
size
Collection &1
Access
Library as
2
Place
3
4
5
6

Collection &Access
Library as
Place
Collection&
AccessTangibles

14

Collection&
AccessTangibles
Reliability
Tangibles
EmpathyCollection&
AccessCollection &AccessEmpathy

15
16
17
18
19
20

ResponsivenessResponsiveness
Reliability
Assurance
Reliability
Responsiveness

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

EmpathyResponsivenessLibrary as
Place
Empathy
Empathy
Reliability
Assurance

28
29

Assurance
Assurance

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Mean
Statements

Diff.

16.Access to digital collections from PC

1.70

28.A place for reflection and creativity

1.48

26.Expect to find information and new ideas

1.36

10.Space that enables quiet study

1.35

1.Availability of required information
15.Visually appealing materials (such as pamphlets,statements or signs) associated with the service

1.26
1.25

12.Timely document delivery
7.Visually appealing facilities
17.Providing services as promised
11.Modern equipment
20.Library staff who understand the needs of their users
19.Instruction in use and/or training sessions, whenneeded

1.21
1.18
1.17
1.16
1.14

5.Convenient access to library collections
29.Library staff who deal with users in a concerned orconsiderate fashion
6.Prompt service to users
27.Readiness to respond to user's questions
22.Providing services at the promised time
21.Library staff who instill confidence in users
25.Dependability in handling user's service problems
13.Keeping users informed about when services will be
performed
9.Giving users individual attention
18.Willingness to help users

1.04

1.13

0.95
0.94
0.94
0.93
0.93
0.92
0.87
0.86
0.86

3.A comfortable and inviting location
2.Convenient opening hours
4.Having the users' best interests at heart
24.Performing services right the first time
14.Assuring users of the accuracy and confidentiality of
their personal information/data
8.Library staff who are always courteous
23.Library staff with the knowledge to answer user's
questions

0.86
0.86
0.85
0.83
0.82
0.82
0.77

31

Table 4.4
Graduate Students (t-test)
Statements
1.Availability of required information
2.Convenient opening hours
3.A comfortable and inviting location
4.Having the users' best interests at heart
5.Convenient access to library collections
6.Prompt service to users
7.Visually appealing facilities
8.Library staff who are always courteous
9.Giving users individual attention
10.Space that enables quiet study
11.Modern equipment
12.Timely document delivery
13.Keeping users informed about whenservices will be performed
14.Assuring users of the accuracy andconfidentiality of their personal
information/data
15.Visually appealing materials (such as
pamphlets, statements or signs) associatedwith the service
16.Access to digital collections from PC
17.Providing services as promised
18.Willingness to help users
19.Instruction in use and/or training
sessions, when needed
20.Library staff who understand the needsof their users
21.Library staff who instill confidence inusers
22.Providing services at the promisedtime
23.Library staff with the knowledge toanswer user's questions
24.Performing services right the first time
25.Dependability in handling user's
service problems
26.Expect to find information and new
ideas
27.Readiness to respond to user's
questions28.A place for reflection and creativity
29.Library staff who deal with users in aconcerned or considerate fashionx

Expectation
Score

SD

Perception
Score

SD

Mean
Diff.

t

6.13
6.09
5.94
6.04
6.20
6.04
6.09
5.88
5.70
6.23
5.90
5.83

0.78
0.89
0.81
0.86
0.80
0.91
0.84
0.90
0.88
0.87
0.92
0.91

4.69
5.02
5.49
4.92
5.11
4.82
5.10
4.97
4.66
5.26
5.12
4.63

1.25
1.34
1.13
1.27
1.20
1.29
1.33
1.17
1.24
1.31
1.11
1.19

1.44 13.15*
1.08 9.05*
0.46 4.61*
1.12 10.31*
1.09 9.83*
1.22 10.63*
0.99 8.28*
0.91 8.53*
1.04 9.70*
0.97 8.31*
0.78 6.74*
1.20 8.58*

5.83

1.00

5.14

1.32

0.70

6.32*

6.18

0.85

5.45

1.30

0.72

6.22*

5.72
5.83
5.83
6.03

0.98
1.08
0.96
0.94

4.85
4.25
4.93
5.03

1.33
1.36
1.15
1.31

0.87
1.58
0.90
1.00

7.73*
9.87*
8.46*
8.42*

5.57

0.98

4.34

1.35

1.24

9.77*

5.83

1.00

4.66

1.36

1.17

9.61*

5.83

0.85

4.76

1.17

1.07

9.88*

5.75

0.94

4.93

1.14

0.82

7.33*

6.22
5.95

0.82
0.93

5.17
5.02

1.08
1.08

1.05 10.11*
0.93 8.63*

5.91

0.87

4.87

1.19

1.04

6.28

0.87

4.87

1.18

1.41 12.02*

5.95
6.38

0.94
0.78

4.75
5.09

1.28
1.38

1.20 9.98*
1.29 10.47*

6.04

0.92

4.95

1.29

1.09

*Note p < . 05

32

9.27*

9.23*

Table 4.5
Gap differences between desired expectations and actual service perceptions
Graduate students ranked by gap size
Rank
Order
by
Gap
size
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Mean
Dimensions
StatementsCollection&
AccessCollection &AccessCollection&
Access
Library as
Place
Collection &AccessResponsivenessResponsivenessCollection&
AccessEmpathy
Empathy
Empathy13
14
15Collection &AccessEmpathy
Assurance
Assurance

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Reliability
EmpathyResponsivenessTangibles
Library as Place
Reliability
Assurance
Reliability
Tangibles

12

25
26
27

Reliability
Tangibles
Assurance

28

Responsiveness29

Library as Place

Diff.

16.Access to digital collections from PC

1.58

1.Availability of required information

1.44

26.Expect to find information and new ideas

1.41

28.A place for reflection and creativity
19.Instruction in use and/or training sessions, whenneeded
6.Prompt service to users
27.Readiness to respond to user's questions

1.29

12.Timely document delivery
20.Library staff who understand the needs of their users
4.Having the users' best interests at heart
29.Library staff who deal with users in a concerned orconsiderate fashion

1.20
1.17
1.12

5.Convenient access to library collections
2.Convenient opening hours
21.Library staff who instill confidence in users
23.Library staff with the knowledge to answer user's
questions25.Dependability in handling user's service problems
9.Giving users individual attention
18.Willingness to help users
7.Visually appealing facilities
10.Space that enables quiet study
24.Performing services right the first time
8.Library staff who are always courteous
17.Providing services as promised
15.Visually appealing materials (such as pamphlets,statements or signs) associated with the service
22.Providing services at the promised time
11.Modern equipment
14.Assuring users of the accuracy and confidentiality of
their personal information/data
13.Keeping users informed about when services will be
performed
3.A comfortable and inviting location

1.09
1.08
1.07

1.24
1.22
1.20

1.09

1.05
1.04
1.04
1.00
0.99
0.97
0.93
0.91
0.90
0.87
0.82
0.78
0.72
0.70
0.46

33

Table 4.6
Undergraduate student (t-test)
Statements
1.Availability of required information
2.Convenient opening hours
3.A comfortable and inviting location
4.Having the users' best interests at heart
5.Convenient access to library collections
6.Prompt service to users
7.Visually appealing facilities
8.Library staff who are always courteous
9.Giving users individual attention
10.Space that enables quiet study
11.Modern equipment
12.Timely document delivery
13.Keeping users informed about whenservices will be performed
14.Assuring users of the accuracy andconfidentiality of their personal
information/data
15.Visually appealing materials (such as
pamphlets, statements or signs) associatedwith the service
16.Access to digital collections from PC
17.Providing services as promised
18.Willingness to help users
19.Instruction in use and/or training
sessions, when needed
20.Library staff who understand the needsof their users
21.Library staff who instill confidence inusers
22.Providing services at the promisedtime
23.Library staff with the knowledge toanswer user's questions
24.Performing services right the first time
25.Dependability in handling user's
service problems
26.Expect to find information and new
ideas
27.Readiness to respond to user's
questions28.A place for reflection and creativity
29.Library staff who deal with users in aconcerned or considerate fashionx

Expectation
Score

Perception
Score

SD

Mean
Diff.

t

SD

6.10
6.03
6.09
5.98
6.04
6.04
6.13
5.93
5.55
6.38
6.02
5.71

0.87
0.88
0.91
1.00
0.96
0.98
0.96
1.05
1.22
0.90
1.03
1.05

4.69
5.32
5.24
4.44
4.84
4.50
4.90
4.36
4.08
4.97
4.92
4.53

1.12
1.07
1.27
1.37
1.21
1.19
1.31
1.34
1.30
1.35
1.16
1.10

1.41
0.71
0.85
1.54
1.19
1.54
1.23
1.57
1.47
1.41
1.10
1.17

18.16*
9.27*
10.28*
15.92*
14.26*
18.26*
13.78*
17.26*
15.74*
16.18*
13.71*
13.24*

5.83 0.98

4.83 1.31

1.00 10.92*

6.09 1.04

5.09 1.35

1.00 11.69*

5.64
5.84
5.98
6.11

4.67
4.33
4.61
4.51

0.98
1.50
1.37
1.60

1.14
1.11
1.02
1.00

1.32
1.40
1.17
1.39

10.34*
14.51*
15.66*
16.96*

5.71 1.12

4.26 1.25

1.45 15.14*

5.98 1.04

4.39 1.24

1.59 17.66*

5.84 0.95

4.54 1.15

1.30 17.44*

5.87 0.99

4.87 1.15

1.00 14.24*

6.05 0.99
6.02 1.04

4.96 1.21
4.66 1.31

1.10 13.35*
1.35 15.15*

5.94 1.05

4.76 1.21

1.18 14.02*

6.11 1.01

4.76 1.23

1.35 15.45*

5.93 1.05
6.31 0.84

4.59 1.26
4.91 1.33

1.33 14.43*
1.40 15.18*

6.09 1.02

4.52 1.34

1.57 17.01**Note p < . 05

34

Table 4.7
Gap differences between desired expectations and actual service perceptions
Undergraduate students ranked by gap size
Rank
Order
by
Gap
size
1
2

Mean
Dimensions

ResponsivenessEmpathy3

Empathy4567

Assurance
EmpathyResponsivenessCollection &AccessEmpathyCollection &AccessCollection &Access
Library as Place
Library as Place
Reliability
Reliability
Collection &AccessResponsiveness
Assurance
Tangibles
Collection &AccessReliability

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

22
23

Collection &AccessTangibles
Assurance

24
25

Reliability
Responsiveness

26

Assurance

21

27

Tangibles

28
29

Library as Place
Empathy

Statements

Diff.

18.Willingness to help users
20.Library staff who understand the needs of theirusers
29.Library staff who deal with users in aconcerned or considerate fashion
8.Library staff who are always courteous
4.Having the users' best interests at heart
6.Prompt service to users

1.60

16.Access to digital collections from PC
9.Giving users individual attention
19.Instruction in use and/or training sessions,when needed

1.50
1.47

1.Availability of required information
10.Space that enables quiet study
28.A place for reflection and creativity
17.Providing services as promised
24.Performing services right the first time

1.41
1.41
1.40
1.37
1.35

26.Expect to find information and new ideas
27.Readiness to respond to user's questions
21.Library staff who instill confidence in users
7.Visually appealing facilities

1.35
1.33
1.30
1.23

5.Convenient access to library collections
25.Dependability in handling user's service
problems

1.19

12.Timely document delivery
11.Modern equipment
23.Library staff with the knowledge to answer
user's questions
22.Providing services at the promised time
13.Keeping users informed about when services
will be performed
14.Assuring users of the accuracy andconfidentiality of their personal information/data
15.Visually appealing materials (such as
pamphlets, statements or signs) associated withthe service
3.A comfortable and inviting location
2.Convenient opening hours

1.17
1.10

1.59
1.57
1.57
1.54
1.54

1.45

1.18

1.10
1.00
1.00
1.00

0.98
0.85
0.71

35

By individual group of users, what are the users’ expectations forexcellent service quality from TU Library system ?
To examine the desired service expectation by individual user groups, themeans of desired service expectations are ranked respectively from highest to lowest.
The results reveals that there are some commonalities related to user desired service
expectations. The five attributes that all users commonly expected are “ Space thatenables quiet study” “A place for reflection and creativity” “ Expect to findinformation and new idea” “Library staff with the knowledge to answer user’squestions” and “ Assuring users of the accuracy and confidentiality of their personal
information/data ”.
The attributes “Access to digital collections from PC ” and “ Timely
document delivery ”are not ranked in the higher order of all users’ expectations,though they are the larger gaps from faculty/researcher and undergraduate student
groups’ perspectives. If we consider from the high number of missing value of these
attributes , (see Table 3.20) ,it deems to conclude that the users don’t realize their own
expectations because they don’t have much experience with these services.
The attribute “ Giving users individual attention” is ranked very low in alluser group expectations. It maybe because the users don’t want individual attention
from library staff or don’t contact library staff when involved in library services.
It is interesting that the attribute “Instruction in use and/or training
sessions, when needed” is ranked very low by all users groups.( see Table 4.8 – Table
4.10) It seems that the users want to access library service by their own without
mediation or instruction.

36

Table 4.8
Desired Service Expectation of Faculty/Researcher (Order by Means)
Faculty/Researcher desired expectations
Statements
1 Space that enables quiet study
2 A place for reflection and creativity
3 Convenient access to library collections
Assuring users of the accuracy and
4 confidentiality of their personal information/data
Library staff with the knowledge to answer
5 user’s questions
6 Expect to find information and new ideas
7 Willingness to help users
Library staff who deal with users in a concerned
8 or considerate fashion
9 Library staff who are always courteous
10 Access to digital collections from PC
11 Having the users’ best interests at heart
12 Availability of required information
13 Visually appealing facilities
14 Providing services as promised
15 Modern equipment
16 Providing services at the promised time
Keeping users informed about when services
17 will be performed
18 Convenient opening hours
19 Prompt service to users
20 A comfortable and inviting location
21 Readiness to respond to user’s questions
Library staff who understand the needs of their
22 users
23 Timely document delivery
Dependability in handling user’s service
24 problems
25 Performing services right the first time
Visually appealing materials (such as pamphlets,
26 statements or signs) associated with the service
27 Library staff who instill confidence in users
Instruction in use and/or training sessions, when
28 needed
29 Giving users individual attention

Frequency Missing Mean SD
214
210
217

14
18
11

6.32
6.23
6.21

0.81
0.95
0.86

203

25

6.21

0.87

205
213
214

23
15
14

6.20
6.16
6.14

0.92
0.95
0.90

214
215
201
219
215
216
197
213
193

14
13
27
9
13
12
31
15
35

6.12
6.11
6.10
6.08
6.06
6.06
6.04
6.04
6.03

0.90
0.86
0.96
0.99
0.90
0.99
0.96
0.94
0.93

208
215
215
218
206

20
13
13
10
22

6.02
6.02
6.01
6.01
6.01

0.97
0.88
0.97
0.95
0.96

209
193

19
35

6.01
5.99

0.95
0.88

207
198

21
30

5.98
5.96

0.88
0.96

209
211

19
17

5.92
5.88

0.98
0.98

203
210

25
18

5.87
5.79

1.03
0.96

37

Table 4.9
Desired Service Expectation of Graduate Students (Order by Means)
Graduate Students desired expectations
Statements
1 A place for reflection and creativity
2 Expect to find information and new ideas
3 Space that enables quiet study
Library staff with the knowledge to answer user's
4 questions
5 Convenient access to library collections
Assuring users of the accuracy and confidentiality of
6 their personal information/data
7 Availability of required information
8 Convenient opening hours
9 Visually appealing facilities
10 Prompt service to users
Library staff who deal with users in a concerned or
11 considerate fashion
12 Having the users' best interests at heart
13 Willingness to help users
14 Performing services right the first time
15 Readiness to respond to user's questions
16 A comfortable and inviting location
17 Dependability in handling user's service problems
18 Modern equipment
Keeping users informed about when services will be
19 performed
20 Providing services as promised
21 Library staff who are always courteous
22 Timely document delivery
23 Library staff who understand the needs of their users
24 Providing services at the promised time
25 Library staff who instill confidence in users
26 Access to digital collections from PC
Visually appealing materials (such as pamphlets,
27 statements or signs) associated with the service
28 Giving users individual attention
29 Instruction in use and/or training sessions, when needed

Frequency Missing Mean SD
160
162
160

5
3
5

6.36 0.80
6.29 0.86
6.23 0.86

154
159

11
6

6.23 0.82
6.19 0.80

158
162
159
160
160

7
3
6
5
5

6.15
6.13
6.09
6.09
6.03

0.88
0.78
0.89
0.84
0.92

160
162
159
157
156
161
154
158

5
3
6
8
9
4
11
7

6.03
6.02
6.02
5.95
5.94
5.94
5.90
5.89

0.93
0.87
0.94
0.95
0.97
0.81
0.92
0.93

156
156
160
150
156
152
160
152

9
9
5
15
9
13
5
13

5.88
5.88
5.86
5.85
5.83
5.81
5.79
5.76

0.99
0.97
0.92
0.95
1.00
0.93
0.89
1.08

160
159
154

5
6
11

5.72 1.00
5.65 0.91
5.56 1.00

38

Table 4.10
Desired Service Expectation of Undergraduate Students (Order by Means)
Undergraduate students’ desired expectation
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

Statements
Space that enables quiet study
A place for reflection and creativity
Visually appealing facilities
Willingness to help users
Library staff who deal with users in a concerned orconsiderate fashion
A comfortable and inviting location
Assuring users of the accuracy and confidentiality of theirpersonal information/data
Availability of required information
Expect to find information and new ideas
Library staff with the knowledge to answer user's
questions
Prompt service to users
Performing services right the first time
Convenient access to library collections
Modern equipment
Convenient opening hours
Providing services as promised
Library staff who understand the needs of their users
Having the users' best interests at heart
Dependability in handling user's service problems
Readiness to respond to user's questions
Library staff who are always courteous
Providing services at the promised time
Library staff who instill confidence in users
Keeping users informed about when services will be
performed
Access to digital collections from PC
Timely document delivery
Instruction in use and/or training sessions, when needed
Visually appealing materials (such as pamphlets,statements or signs) associated with the service
Giving users individual attention

Frequency Missing Mean SD
260
257
262
259

6
9
4
7

6.38
6.31
6.12
6.11

0.89
0.84
0.99
0.99

259
260

7
6

6.09
6.08

1.01
0.91

262
262
259

4
4
7

6.08
6.07
6.07

1.07
0.91
1.04

257
258
253
258
258
261
260
260
259
257
254
261
250
256

9
8
13
8
8
5
6
6
7
9
12
5
16
10

6.06
6.04
6.02
6.02
6.02
6.02
5.97
5.97
5.97
5.96
5.93
5.93
5.86
5.84

1.00
0.98
1.03
0.97
1.02
0.91
1.03
1.04
1.01
1.04
1.05
1.05
0.97
0.97

257
255
251
256

9
11
15
10

5.82
5.80
5.72
5.68

0.98
1.11
1.05
1.13

261
261

5
5

5.64
5.55

1.14
1.21

If all attributes are ranked respectively by means, the top ten of the desired
service expectations of all user groups are as the following table :39

Table 4.11
Service Expectations of all User Groups (Order by Means)
Overall Expectation

Order

Statements

1 Space that enables quiet study
2 A place for reflection and creativity
3 Expect to find information and new ideas
Library staff with the knowledge to answer user's
4 questions
Assuring users of the accuracy and confidentiality of
5 their personal information/data
6 Convenient access to library collections
7 Willingness to help users
8 Visually appealing facilities
Library staff who deal with users in a concerned or
9 considerate fashion
10 Availability of required information
11 Convenient opening hours
12 Prompt service to users
13 A comfortable and inviting location
14 Having the users' best interests at heart
15 Modern equipment
16 Performing services right the first time
17 Library staff who are always courteous
18 Providing services as promised
19 Readiness to respond to user's questions
20 Dependability in handling user's service problems
21 Library staff who understand the needs of their users
Keeping users informed about when services will be
22 performed
23 Providing services at the promised time
24 Access to digital collections from PC
25 Timely document delivery
26 Library staff who instill confidence in users
Visually appealing materials (such as pamphlets,
27 statements or signs) associated with the service
Instruction in use and/or training sessions, when
28 needed
29 Giving users individual attention

Frequency Missing Mean SD
636
629
636

25
32
25

6.32
6.30
6.16

0.86
0.87
0.97

618

43

6.15

0.93

625
636
634
640

36
25
27
21

6.14
6.13
6.10
6.09

0.96
0.89
0.95
0.96

635
641
636
635
641
642
631
610
638
615
618
620
627

26
20
25
26
20
19
30
51
23
46
43
41
34

6.09
6.08
6.04
6.03
6.02
6.02
6.00
5.99
5.97
5.97
5.96
5.95
5.95

0.95
0.88
0.90
0.96
0.90
0.97
0.97
0.99
0.96
0.99
1.00
0.96
1.00

623
597
610
596
629

38
64
51
65
32

5.91
5.90
5.89
5.84
5.84

0.98
0.95
1.06
0.98
0.95

632

29

5.76

1.06

615
632

46
29

5.71
5.65

1.07
1.06

If we consider the top ten attributes that were commonly or partially expectedby all respondent groups, the result are as follows:40

Table 4.12
Top Ten Attributes of Desired Service Expectation of all User Groups
Dimensions

Attributes

Fac./Res.

Grad.

1. Library as PlaceSpace that enables quiet
study
A place for reflection andcreativity
Expect to find informationand new ideas
Library staff with theknowledge to answer user's
questions
Assuring users of theaccuracy and confidentialityof their personal
information/data
Convenient access to librarycollections
Willingness to help users
Visually appealing facilities
Library staff who deal withusers in a concerned orconsiderate fashion
Availability of required
information

¥

¥

Under
grad.
¥

¥

¥

¥

¥

¥

¥

¥

¥

¥

¥

¥

¥

¥

¥

2. Library as Place
3. Collection &Access
4. Assurance

5. Assurance

6. Collection&Access
7. Responsiveness8. Tangibles
9. Empathy

10.Collection &Access

¥
¥

¥
¥
¥

¥

¥

¥

The desired service expectations shown in Table 4.12 reflect that the users
required information that match their needs with convenient accessibility. They canfind material easily and library can provide a place for quiet study, appealing facilities
and modern equipment. Whenever they encounter the service problem, the staff withknowledge are willing to help them and they want the accuracy and confidentiality of
their personal information and data.
* Note : From Table 4.1 to Table 4.12 , the dimensions of original SERVQUAL will
be used for simple interpretation
What are the underlying dimensions of service quality of TU Library System fromuser perspectives?
The factor analysis method is applied to investigate the dimensionalities ofservice quality from user perspectives. Table 4.13 represents the result of the
exploratory factor analysis after excluding non-users from the data collected at TU
Library System. The values of desired expectations were set as the variables, and theprincipal factor method with direct-oblimin rotation (oblique rotation) was used. Afterconsidering the result from the scree plot, The following 3 factors are the mostappropriate.
1.Affect of Service – Organizational The first factor is about the service
content which planned or offered by the library as an organization .Some items thatstrong response to this factor are related to the service which provide by the library41

such as ; “Visually appealing materials (such as pamphlets, statements or signs)
associated with the service” “Instruction in use and/or training sessions, whenneeded” “Access to digital collections from PC” and “Providing services aspromised” . The items related to service mind such as “Library staff who understandthe needs of their users” “Library staff who are always courteous ” and “Willingness
to help users” are also included in this factor. It seems that the users want to accesslibrary service via staff approach.
2. Collection and Access This factor is about complete collection which isconveniently accessible via modern equipment , library location which is convenient
for access and appropriate service time. The items which show strong response on thisfactor are “ A comfortable and inviting location” Convenient access to librarycollections “Availability of required information” and “Convenient opening hours”
3. Affect of service – Personal The third factor is associated to staff
knowledge and ability to perform good service. The items show high loading on thisfactor are “Dependability in handling user's service problems” “Readiness to respondto user's questions” “Performing services right the first time” and “Library staff withthe knowledge to answer user's questions”
Although the items which associate to the place such as “Space that enables
quiet study” “A comfortable and inviting location ” and “A place for reflection andcreativity” can’t form a new factor, they show strong response on entire factors. It
means that libraries as places for study, rendezvous are still important from user
perspectives.

42

Table 4.13
Factor analysis of Desired Service Perceptions
Pattern Matrix

Factor1

2

3

Visually appealing materials (such as pamphlets, statements or signs) associated with theservice
Library staff who understand the needs of their users

0.82 0.02 0.00
0.80 -0.06 0.11

Providing services as promised

0.80 -0.09 0.11

Assuring users of the accuracy and confidentiality of their personal information/data

0.77 -0.02 0.09

Library staff who are always courteous

0.76 0.27 -0.15

Instruction in use and/or training sessions, when needed

0.75 -0.12 0.16

Keeping users informed about when services will be performed

0.74 0.07 -0.01

Modern equipment

0.73 0.15 -0.08

Willingness to help users

0.72 0.14 -0.03

Access to digital collections from PC

0.72 -0.08 0.05

Giving users individual attention

0.70 0.14 -0.02

Space that enables quiet study

0.67 0.23 -0.08

Timely document delivery

0.59 -0.16 0.26

A comfortable and inviting location

0.05 0.79 0.00

Convenient access to library collections

0.01 0.77 0.11

Having the users' best interests at heart

0.14 0.74 0.05

Availability of required information-0.03 0.71 0.18

Visually appealing facilities

0.17 0.64 0.05

Convenient opening hours

0.09 0.63 0.08

Prompt service to users

0.11 0.62 0.17

Dependability in handling user's service problems-0.01 0.03 0.86

Readiness to respond to user's questions

0.07 0.01 0.81

Performing services right the first time

0.03 -0.01 0.78

Library staff who deal with users in a concerned or considerate fashion

0.01 0.16 0.77

Providing services at the promised time

0.13 -0.15 0.76

Library staff with the knowledge to answer user's questions

0.03 0.06 0.76

A place for reflection and creativity-0.01 0.18 0.69

Library staff who instill confidence in users

0.11 0.10 0.69

Expect to find information and new ideas-0.03 0.28 0.6443Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 10
iterations.
Eigen values

15.14

1.96

1.63

Contribution (%)

52.20

6.76

5.62

Cumulative
contribution (%)

52.20

58.96

64.58

Factor correlation matrix
Factor

1

2

3

1

1

0.59 0.69

2

0.59

1 0.48

3

0.69

0.48

1

44

By individual user group, what attributes are inside and outside the range of the“ Zone of Tolerance ” ?
To investigate the “ Zone of Tolerance ” among 3 user groups, the means of 3
levels of services : desired service expectations, perception of actual services, andminimum service expectations are compared and shown in graphs (see Graph 4.14.3).
For faculty/researcher group, there are 4 attributes that are not in the range of
the “Zone of Tolerance” : “ Access to digital collection from PC ” “ Space thatenables quiet study ” “ A place for reflection and creativity ”, and “Expect to findinformation and new idea ” (see Graph 4.1)
For graduate student group, 2 attributes are not in the range of the “ Zone ofTolerance ” : “ Access to digital collections from PC ”, “ Instruction in use and/or
training when needed ” (see Graph 4.2)
For undergraduate student group, there are 4 attributes which are not in therange of the “ Zone of Tolerance ” and both are related to staff attributes : “Willingness to help users” “ Library staff who deal with users in a concerned orconsiderate fashion ”, “ Library staff who understand the needs of their users ”, and“ Giving user individual attention” (see Graph 4.3) It seems that undergraduate
students encountered problem related to library staff when involved in library service
but for the faculty/researcher and graduate students the attributes related to thedimensions “ Collection&Access ” and the place are not so problematic.

45

Graph 4.1Faculty/researcher perception and Zone of Tolerance

Faculty/Researcher Perceptions& Zone of Tolerance

Minimum service
Desired service
Perceptions of actual service

Visually appealing facilities
Expect to find information and new ideas

7.00

Instruction in use and/or training sessions, when needed

Modern equipment
Visually appealing materials (such as pamphlets, statements or signs)
associated with the service
Performing services right the first time

Access to digital collections from PC

6.00
Providing services as promised

Convenient access to library collections

Timely document delivery

Availability of required information

5.00
4.00

Providing services at the promised time

Dependability in handling user's service problems

Prompt service to users

Space that enables quiet study

3.00
A comfortable and inviting location

A place for reflection and creativity

Having the users' best interests at heart

Giving users individual attention

Library staff who deal with users in a concerned or considerate fashion
Library staff who understand the needs of their users
Convenient opening hours

Keeping users informed about when services will be performed

Willingness to help users

Readiness to respond to user's questions

Library staff who instill confidence in users

Library staff who are always courteous
Library staff with the knowledge to answer user's questions
Assuring users of the accuracy and confidentiality of their personal
information/data46

Graph 4.2 Graduate student perception
and the Zone of Tolerance

TU Graduate Students - Perception& Zone of Tolerance
Minimum service
Desired service
Perceptions of actual service
Visually appealing facilities
Modern equipment
Expect to find information and new ideas
Visually appealing materials (such as pamphlets, statements or signs) associatedInstruction in use and/or training sessions, when neededwith the service

7

Access to digital collections from PC

Performing services right the first time6
Convenient access to library collections

Timely document delivery

Availability of required information

Space that enables quiet study

Providing services as promised

5
4
3

A comfortable and inviting location

A place for reflection and creativity

Having the users' best interests at heart

Giving users individual attention
Library staff who deal with users in a concerned or considerate fashion
Library staff who understand the needs of their users
Convenient opening hours

Providing services at the promised time

Dependability in handling user's service problems

Prompt service to users

Keeping users informed about when services will be performed

Willingness to help users

Readiness to respond to user's questions

Library staff who instill confidence in users
Library staff who are always courteous
Library staff with the knowledge to answer user's questions
Assuring users of the accuracy and confidentiality of their personal
information/data47

Graph 4.3
Undergraduate student perception and Zone of Tolerance

TU Undergraduate Student& Perceptions & Zone of Tolerance
Minimum service
Desired service
Perceptions of actual service
Visually appealing facilities
Modern equipment
Expect to find information and new ideas
Visually appealing materials (such as pamphlets, statements or signs)
associated with the service

7.00

Instruction in use and/or training sessions, when needed

Performing services right the first time

Access to digital collections from PC

6.00
Providing services as promised

Convenient access to library collections

Timely document delivery

Availability of required information

5.00
4.00

Providing services at the promised time

Dependability in handling user's service problems

Prompt service to users

Space that enables quiet study

3.00
A comfortable and inviting location

A place for reflection and creativity

Having the users' best interests at heart

Giving users individual attention
Library staff who deal with users in a concerned or considerate fashion
Library staff who understand the needs of their users
Convenient opening hours

Keeping users informed about when services will be performed

Willingness to help users

Readiness to respond to user's questions

Library staff who instill confidence in users
Library staff who are always courteous
Library
staff
with theandknowledge
to answer
user'squestions
Assuring usersof theaccuracy
confidentialityof theirpersonal
information/data48

What are the problems users encountered when involved in library services?
To investigate the problems users encountered when involved in libraryservices, the user comments are classified by categories and counted.(Table 4.14) The
most problems users encountered are library material inadequacy and outdated
resources (books, journal, newspaper, computer terminals ) The reshelving problem
is also another problem as the users cannot find the books on shelves, though theyfound in OPAC. It seems that most problems are related to library resources, place forstudy, and modern equipment. The library staff attributes cannot satisfy the users
because the users still comment about service mind, impoliteness and courtesy. The
users also comment about the locker service as they don’t understand why they haveto leave their baggage in the lockers while the library has censor machine at theentrance gate that can examine the non-circulated material. Though the library
installed barcode on all material and the circulation process is computerized, the users
still wait too long in line when they access circulation process.

49

Table 4. 14
Problems that users encountered when involved in library services
Categories

No. ofcomment

Books are not sufficient
Reshelving problem

51
41

Books are not update

23

Wait too long in line

15

Computer are not sufficient

15

Space are not sufficient for study

14

Some staff are impolite

13

Staff should have service mind

10

Service hours are not convenient10

Libraries are too noisy

10

OPAC problem (interface, complicate, slow retrieval)

10

Locker service is not convenient

10

Problem when use remote access (slow, cannot access)7

ILL is not convenient

7

Circulation service is not flexible

7

Want more remote service

6

Want more internet service

6

Circulation information is not reliable

5

Journal are not enough and update

5Temperature in library (too cold, too hot etc.)

4

Want more facilities ( toilet, drinking water, snack corner)

3

More directional signs

3

Access card system has problem

3

Staff are not sufficient3

Library should inform about services

3

Want more online journal

3

Librarians should have knowledge

2

Material is out of order, damaged (books, computers)

2

Photocopy service is not convenient

2

Want more index&abstract service

2

Library server often has problem

2

I don’t feel safe in library1

Improve subject heading specification
Want more newspaper

11Want comfortable seats

1

Instruction and/or training via video
Computer work very slow
TOTAL

1
1
303

50

Summary of Findings
The research findings can answer the research questions and canbe summarized as the followings :Research question 1 : In what ways do TU Library System provide service to its
users ?
The results from calculation of gap differences between desired
expectations and perceptions of actual service of all user groups were ranked
respectively in order to investigate what attributes of service quality meet, exceed, or
fall shot from the user perspectives.(see Table 4.1) The results revealed that all
attributes of service quality don’t meet the users’ expectations. The reason is that it isnatural tendency of people to wish for more than they have. From user perspectives,the dimensions “Collection & Access” and the place are most problematic as the gap
differences are larger. The result is relevant to user comments that the books are notsufficient and update, there is problem about reshelving, and library space is not
sufficient for study, besides the libraries are too noisy. The largest gap among all
attributes is “ Access to digital collection from PC ”. Though only a half of
respondents use remote access( Table 3.12), the gap is the largest. It seems that users
want to use remote service but the libraries cannot provide sufficiently. Though thegaps related to staff attributes are not too large, it cannot be concluded that the users
are satisfied. The missing values of the attributes related to staff are high when users
rated for actual service perceptions ( see Table 3.20) It is possible that users seldom
contact librarians because they cannot decided whether library staff can provided
services at the promised time, provided instruction in use, performed service rightthe first time, etc. or not.
To summarize the result, all attributes of service quality that TU Library
System provide to its users don’t meet the user expectations and the attributes related
to dimensions “ Collection & Access ” and the place are most problematic as the gap
differences are larger that the others. It is possible that library users seldom contact
library staff when they involved in library services so the attributes that occupied thelarger gaps are about service mind not about ability of staff.
Research question 2 : By individual group of users, in what ways do TU Library
System provide service to its users?
The t-test and the gap difference ranking of individual user group arecalculated to investigate what attributes of service quality meet, exceed, or fall shotfrom the user perspectives (see Table 4.2- 4.7)
The results revealed that by individual group of user, all desired service
expectations are lagged behind the actual service perceptions and there are different
perspectives among 3 user groups.
For faculty/researcher group and graduate student group, the larger gaps
are fell into dimensions “ Collection & Access ” and related to library place and thegap of the attribute “ Access to digital collection from PC ” is the largest.
For undergraduate group, the staff attributes are occupied the larger gaps
and followed by those of dimensions “ Collection & Access ” and the library place.
It seems that library may treat faculty/researcher different from students.
Research question 3 : By individual group of users, which attributes of service quality
meet, exceed or fall short user perceptions ?

51

For the 3rd research questions, the gap differences between desired service
level and actual service perception as well as a paired sample t-test will be calculated.
( Table 4.2-4.7) . It can be summarize that from the perspectives of individual usergroup, all service quality attributes don’t meet their desired expectations and thereason was aforementioned. For faculty/researcher group and graduate group, mostattributes which don’t meet user expectations are related to Collection & Access andLibrary as Place. For undergraduate group, most attributes related to staff attributes
don’t meet user expectations.
Research question 4 : By individual group of users, in what way do the users expect
for excellent service quality from TU Library system ?
The means of desired service expectations of each user group and all usergroups were ranked and compared .( Table 4.8 – Table 4.12) to elicit the answer ofthis research question. The result reveals that among 3 groups of users, theexpectations are very similar. The top five expectations of all user groups are the same
attributes. (Table 4.12) (though the orders are a little different) The users expect tofind information that match their needs with convenient accessibility via modern
equipment as well as expect to find the quiet place for study. They expect librarystaff with service mind and knowledge to help them when they encounter service
problems . The users expect to find information by their own as the attribute“ Instruction in user and/or training sessions when needed” is ranked very low in alluser groups. Anyway, some users don’t know their real expectations as they don’t
realize some service such as Document delivery of Remote access service.
Research question 5 : What are the dimensions that determine the customers’
evaluation of service quality of TU Library System?
Factor analysis method will be applied to investigate the underlying
dimensions of service quality. The results can be supported information for the
library managers to convert the theory into practical resources allocation decisions(Philip J. Calvert, 2001).
The result from factor analysis method shows the dimensions that
determine the customers’ evaluation of service quality are ; Affect of service –organizational , Collection and Access , and Affect of service – personal. This finding
reveals which are the important items in each factors.
On entire factors, the items related to service mind show high loading. It
implies that users still want the library staff to help them to accomplish theirobjectives of library usage. Although the attributes related to library place cannot be
formed a new factor, high loading on each factor also implies its importance.

52

Research question 6 : What are the most essential attributes that library managers
should allocated the resources to support for improving excellent service quality?
The “ Zone of Tolerance ” which is the range between desired service
expectation and minimum service expectation will be calculated to find such
attributes. A performance below the tolerance zone will engender customer frustrationand decrease customer loyalty. Among 3 user groups, some attributes are below thezone of tolerance and TU Library System should allocate the resources to support for
improving excellent service quality. The attributes are as the followings :For faculty/researcher group, the attributes belong to dimensions “Collection & Access ” and library place are below the zone of tolerance. The
attributes which library should concern are “ Access to digital collection from PC ”
“ Space that enables quiet study ” “ A place for reflection and creativity ”, and“ Expect to find information and new idea ” (See Table 4.1)
For graduate student group, the attributes belong to dimension“ Collection & Access ” are below the zone of tolerance. The attributes are“ Access to digital collection from PC ” and “ Instruction in user and/or training
session when needed ”
For undergraduate group, the attributes belong to staff attributes
are below the zone of tolerance. Those attributes are “ Willingness to help users” and“ Library staff who understand the needs of their users ” “ Library staff who deal withusers in a concern or considerate fashion ” and “ Giving users individual attention ”
The library managers should provide collection that match user need withconvenient accessibility via modern equipment as well as comfortable and quiet
place for study. In addition to library staff should be helpful when the users encounter
service problems.
The result also confirms the finding in research question 2 that library staff
may treat faculty different from students.
Summary of the attributes below the Zone of ToleranceGroupsFaculty/researcher

Graduate Students

Undergraduate Students

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

The attributes
Access to digital collection from PC
Space that enables quiet study
A place for reflection and creativity
Expect to find information and new idea
Access to digital collection from PC
Instruction in user and/or training session
when needed
Willingness to help users
Library staff who understand the needs oftheir users
Library staff who deal with users in a concern
or considerate fashion
Giving users individual attention

53

Research question 7 : What problems did the users encountered when involved inlibrary service?
To answer this question, user comments are counted and classified bycategories. (Table 4.14 ) The results reveal that most problems users encountered are
related to library material inadequacy, outdate resources, inconvenient accessibility as
well as lacking quiet place for study. Another problem is related to staff attributes as
the users commented about service mind and courtesy. In addition, the users wantmore effective remote service access.

54

Chapter 5
Summary, Discussion and Recommendations
Overview of the Study
This chapter presents a summary, discussion of the research findings andexamines implications.
Statement of the Problem
The problem of this study was to assess the service quality of TU Library
System by investigating the 3 levels of service quality from the user perspectives:(minimum service adequacy, desired expectations, and actual service perceptions)
The result gained can identify what are user desired expectations and whether those
expectations have been met or not.
Surveys of faculty members, researchers, graduate and undergraduate
students were used to identify each level of services. The results gained from thecalculation of the Zone of Tolerance and dimensionalities of service quality can help
the library managers to identify action and allocate resource that can be taken to
improve library services.
Subjects
The subjects of this study consisted of 216 faculty members, 11
researchers, 165 graduate students, and 266 undergraduate students ( 3 unknown
users) of Thammasat University.
Instrumentation
For pretest, the Thai version of the instrumentation was administered to 4
faculty members, 1 researcher, 3 students of Thammasat University. The validationof the translation was checked and edited after the pretest. Some questions wereexpanded and the samples about library services were raised to clarify the meaning.
Data Collection
The Thai translation of the modification of SERVQUAL questionnaire
was administered to 4 groups of users : faculty members, researchers, graduate andundergraduate students of Thammasat University. The response was constituted
17.79 % of total population of faculty members, 45.83% of total population ofresearchers, 2.58% of total population of graduate students, and 1.36 % of total
population of undergraduate students.
Statistical Analysis
After gathering the questionnaires, the survey data was keyed in Excel file.
Before transferring to SPSS version 11.0, the procedures of data treatment were set tovalidate the data for further analysis. After data treatment, the data was transferred to
SPSS Version 11.0 and do statistical analysis in order to accomplish the purposes ofthe study. The descriptive research approach was used in addition to means, standard
deviation, percent, and a t-test for dependent samples. To investigate the underlying
dimensions of service quality, the multivariate statistical method like factor analysis
was used.

55

Open-ended responses were read by the researcher, counted andcategorized into free categories.
Discussion
The study examined the 3 levels of user perspectives: (minimum service
adequacy, desired expectations, and actual service perceptions). The results gained
can identify the gap differences between desired expectations and actual service
perceptions of TU Library System and the way that library has provided service to its
users. The information can also reveal the way users expect for excellent service
quality from TU Library System.
There are several insights gained from the unmet expectations, the way ofuser expectations, and the problem user encountered. At the same time, the Zone ofTolerance and dimensionalities are investigated. The results can be used for future
study related to library service quality at TU Library System.
The Gaps Between User Desired Expectations and Actual Service Perceptions
The study results reveal that all service quality attributes of desired
expectations are not met. The reason maybe like Surithong Srisa-ard mentioned inher doctoral dissertations that it is so common for people to expect more than they
have in their day-to-day life. The larger gaps are related to the dimensions “Collection & Access ” and library place .This finding is relevant to user comments inopen-ended responses (Table 4.13) . The largest gap of all is “ Access to digitalcollection from PC ”. It is interesting that about a half of the respondents don’t accesslibrary remote service (Table 3.12) but the gap is still the largest one. It seems thatusers want to access this service but don’t have enough facilities or computer literacy
for using this service. It is possible that they don’t know this service is available.
The gap differences related to staff attributes also have large sizes and it is about
service mind. The gap sizes relate to staff attributes (Reliability) are not too large as it
seems that the users seldom contact the staff personally so they cannot rate those
attributes. (Table 3.20) When looking at the age of most respondents, it seems thatmost to them are young generation so it is possible they want to access library service
by their own without intermediation. (Table 3.8). The gap sizes relate to the place forquiet study and rendezvous are also large and this is relevant to the frequencies oflibrary use and remote use. (Table 3.1 – Table 3.12). Anyway, for the attribute “ A
comfortable and inviting location ”, the gap size is the smallest one. It is possible thatthe libraries are comfortable and have inviting locations but don’t have quiet spacefor study. A half of users never access remote access so it seems that they accesslibrary buildings directly so the sufficient space is still required.
There are the differences of gap sizes among 3 user groups in terms oforders. (Table 4.2-Table 4.6). While the higher order gaps of faculty/researcher grouprelate to dimensions “ Collection & Access ” and library place , the gap sizes of theattributes relate to library staff are at the top five in the perspectives of undergraduate
students. For graduate students, these attributes are ranked behind the physicalattributes so the result is relevant to that of Surithong Srisa-ard’s. The library staff
may treat faculty/researcher group different from student groups. Anyway, thecollection inadequacy and lack of place for study are still problems of all groups.
When looking at the dimensions “ Collection & Access ” , the faculty/researchergroup and graduate student group seems to have more problem about the insufficient
resource than that of undergraduate student group because the gap of an attribute “56Expect to find information and new ideas ” are at top five ranking. On the contrary,
this gap size of undergraduate student group is quite low (rank 15). It is possible thatabout a half of the undergraduate student respondents are freshmen and sophomores(Table 3.6). The freshmen are still studying prerequisite courses and if compare withfaculty/researcher group and undergraduate student group , they are not heavy users
so information and new idea are not needed at this time.
The User Desired Service Expectations
The top five of desired service expectations that commonly expected by alluser groups relate to library place, knowledge of librarians, accuracy of their service
record, and convenient access to complete collection (Table 4.12).It seems that inaddition to rich collection, convenient accessibility and place for study, the users stillwant the librarians to have knowledge to answer their questions and library can assure
the accuracy and confidentiality for their personal information/data.
Although the users want to access library collection conveniently, theattribute “ Access to digital collections from PC ” is not ranked at the higher order. It
is possible that the users don’t have much experience in using remote access service
and digital collection so they cannot clarify their real expectations. The attribute “Availability of required information ” was not ranked in higher order either,
especially in the perspectives of faculty/researcher group, though it is belong to thedimension “ Collection & Access ”. It is possible that some users used their own
collections or department collections. The data reveals that about 35.2% of users use
faculty libraries which include department collections ( in the sense of the
respondents).( Table 3.10) The attribute “Instruction in use and/or training sessions,when needed ” was ranked very low by all user groups. It seems that the users want touse library by their own without intermediation. This finding is very similar to that ofPhilip J. Calvert’s. In addition, the staff attributes ( Reliability) are not ranked inhigher orders. It is possible that most users seldom contact librarians when accesslibrary services so they cannot clarify their real expectations. The data from desired
service expectations suggested that the users need required information that matches
their needs with conveniently accessibility by their own. They can find material easily
and library can provide a place for quiet study, appealing facilities and modern
equipment. Whenever they encounter service problem, they library staff withknowledge are willing to help them and they want the accuracy and confidentiality of
their personal information and data. This finding implies that “ academic users users
have very similar expectations of services. The national culture does not seem to be amajor precursor of attitudes to service quality.
The Dimensions of User Desired Expectations
The dimensions of service quality were analyzed by factor analysis
method. Factor loadings on each dimension suggests that 3 dimensions areappropriate to explain service quality from user expectations. Those dimensions are
Affect of service –organizational, Collection&Access, and Affect of service –personal. This finding is similar to those of Nitecki’s and Calvert’s. It seem thatusers concern staff attitude, complete collection, and the ability of organization to
perform good service. The result from factor analysis reveal that staff attributes playmajor role on service quality because of high loading on entire factors. The attributes
related to library place also have high loading on entired factors which is relevant to57

the result of the Zone of Tolerance. It seems that the library place is still needed byusers. The space doesn’t seem problematic but the quietness, creativity are needed.
The Zone of Tolerance
There are some service quality attributes below the Zone of Tolerance. For
faculty/researcher group and graduate student group, the attributes belong to libraryplace and “Collection & Access” are below the Zone of Tolerance. On the contrary,from the perspectives of undergraduate students, the staff attributes belong todimensions are below the Zone. The library staff may treat faculties/researchers
different from students. The data from open-ended responses also confirms thisfinding. From the perspectives of faculty/researcher group and graduate student
group, the attribute that is commonly below the Zone of Tolerance are “ Access todigital collection from PC ”. It implies that the library has to provide more service
through networked environment. In addition, the library should provide sufficientfacilities too. Although the collection size belong to TU Library System is higher thanthat of the standard of academic library 2001 ( TU Library System, 2002), theattribute “ Expect to find information and new idea ” is still below the Zone. Actually,
it is so common that no library can own complete collection that match user needs.
The concept of resource sharing may alleviate this problem but it seems that users
don’t realize some useful service such as document delivery service and only a few
access digital collection. The missing values of these 2 attributes confirms thissurmise.( Table 3.21). When looking at the missing values of the attributes related toreliability , it implies that users seldom contact library staff when access libraryservice so they have a little chance to receive appropriate instruction. For graduate
student group, the attribute “ Instruction in use and / or instruction sessions , whenneed ” is below the Zone. It implies that they still want to learn to use libraryeffectively but the data from desired expectation reveals that the users don’t expect
this service so much. The library should find an alternative way to provide theinstruction. For undergraduate student group, the staff attributes that related to service
mind are below the Zone. Thammasat University don’t provide the prerequisite course
about library using for undergraduate students so they may have problems whenaccess library services and want to personally contact library staff. Thai students don’t
have much background in using library from school education system so they needwillingness, courtesy, and empathy when they encounter service problems.
The Problems Users Encountered When Involved in Library Services
All user comments were classified into categories and counted manually.
The data suggested that most problems users encountered are library collection,accessibility, insufficient space, and service mind. The most problems are about the
insufficient and outdate collection. Another underlying problems is about inaccurate
accessibility. The reshelving problem is also most problematic. The users cannot findthe books on shelves, though they found information via OPAC. The service mind isanother problem too. When looking at the missing value related to library staff
attributes (most related to Reliability) , it seems that users don’t have problem withprofessional staff but they have problems with other staff. The comments are like “Some staff are impolite ”, “ Some staff don’t have service mind ” or “ Some staff are
not courteous” and there are only 2 comments related to knowledge of staff. It
maybe because the users seldom contact the librarians so they didn’t complain.

58

Recommendations
After reviewing the result, the recommendations will be presented for
improvement of good service quality.
1. The service attributes that library should allocate resources toimprove for good service quality The service quality attributes which don’t meetuser desired expectations from the calculation of the Zone of Tolerance and Factor
analysis shown that most problems are related to insufficient library collection, quiet
place for study, and service mind. Though the library budget is not sufficient, libraryshould consider how to minimize the gap between user desired expectations andactual service perceptions appropriately. The attribute “ Access to digital collection
from PC” is below the Zone of Tolerance from the perspectives of bothfaculty/researcher and graduate student groups so the libraries should facilitate
urgently. More computer terminals, internet access points must be provided. For
undergraduate student group, they comment about staff service mind because they are
not keen in library using so the staff should more concern.
2. Library instruction or training session Though the data reveals thatthe attribute “ Instruction in use and/or training sessions, when needed ” is ranked
very low from user desired expectations, the result of the zone of tolerance reveals
that graduate student group still need instruction/or training. The researcher believethat they don’t want formal training course so the libraries should seek alternative
way of training. The missing value also reveals that the users seldom contact
librarians when involve in library service and it seems that users want to use libraryby their own. The library should consider how to provide library effective guide bothprinted and electronic version associate with the services. For the researcher’s
opinion, the librarians should cooperate with the lecturers to recommend library
resources, service etc. on the beginning of the class.
3. Remote access service Though only a half of respondents accessremote service, the data from desired expectations reveals that users want to accessdigital collection. The library should provide more facilities such as computer
terminal, internet service, etc. to enhance remote access service.
4. Material associated with the service The data reveals that about ahalf of users don’t access remote access. It seems that users don’t know how to accessthose services. Actually, the library provide such document in library building but the
5. Staff The data calculated from the Zone of Tolerance implies thatlibrary staff may treat each user group differently so the library staff should consider
this finding. High missing value related to staff knowledge implies that users seldom
contact professional staff so reference service should be more proactive, besides
reference desk should be easy to observe.
6. Public relations about the services The libraries should announce
services and resources via library homepage. The library homepage need urgently
improved. It must be more informative and well organized. The structure of thehomepage should be clear and easy to use. Remote access will be more and moreincreased as most users are young generation. They get use to using library services
via internet.
7. Interlibrary loan service User comment about insufficient and out
date library collection is at the highest rank. Though it is so common that no libraryhas complete collection, effective interlibrary loan service must be enhanced to59alleviate this problem. The ILL regulations must be officially set. Now TU Libraries
located at too many locations so effective ILL is needed.
8. Reshelving problems The data from user comments reveals that thisproblem is at the higher rank. The library should seek the better way for improving
reshelving speed. The missing books is also another problem.It maybe because thebooks are missing.

60¦¦µ»¦¤­Îµ´®°­¤» ¤®µª·¥µ¨´¥¦¦¤«µ­¦r. ¦µ¥µµ¦«¹¬µÁ° : Self Study Report - SSR¦»Á¡ ² : ­Îµ´®°­¤» ¤®µª·¥µ¨´¥¦¦¤«µ­¦r, 2545
¦¦¤«µ­¦r, ¤®µª·¥µ¨´¥. ¦µ¥µ¦³Îµe 2545 ¦»Á¡² : ¤®µª·¥µ¨´¥¦¦¤«µ­¦r , 2545.
Bibliographies
Abdallah,Fawz S. Service Quality in the Reference services of theLebanese American
University (LAU) Libraries : Gap Analysis. Phd. Dissertation. Simons
College, 2002.
Cook, Colleen and Heath, Fred. SERVQUAL and the Quest for New Measures.
(http://www.arl.org/newsltr/207/servqual.html)
Cook, Colleen and Thompson, Bruce. “ Reliability and Validity of SERVQUAL Scores
Used to Evaluate Perceptions of Library Service Quality “ Journal of
Academic Librarianship Vol.26, no. 4 : p. 248-258.
Cullen, Rowena. Perspectives on User Satisfaction Surveys. Library Trends. Vol.49,no.4(Spring 2001) : p. 662-686.
Grapentine, Terry. The History and Future of Sercvice Quality Assessment : Connecting
Customer Needs and Expectations to Business Processes(http://www.grapentine.com/displayarticles.asp?Id=10.
Hernon, Peter and Altman Ellen. Assessing Service Quality : Satisfying the Expectationsof Library Customers Chicago : American Library Association, 1998.
Hernon, Peter. “ Quality : New Directions in the Research” Journal of Academic
Librarianship. Vol.28, no.4 (Jul 2002) : p. 224-231.
Johnston, Robert.” The Zone of Tolerance : Exploring the relationship between service
transactions and satisfaction with the overall service International”
Journal of Service Industry Management vol. 6,no.2 ,1995 :p. 46-61.
Marketing Consultant for MCB University Press. Journal of Services Marketingvol.14,no.5 , 2000.
Nitecki, Danuta A. and Hernon, Peter. Measuring Service Quality at Yale University's
Libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship Vol.26,no.4 : p. 259-273.

Nitecki, Danuta A. Changing the Concept and Measure of Service Quality in Academic
Libraries. Journal of Academic ibrarianship vol. 22,no.3 (May 1996) : p.
181-191.
Surithong Srisa-Ard. User Expectations and Perceptions of Library Service Quality of an
Academic Library in Thailand PhD. Dissertation . Illinois State University,
1997.

APPENDIX
The modification of SERVQUAL questionnaire1. nµÅo¦´ o°¤¼¨¸Éo°µ¦µ®o°­¤»
2. ªµ¤Á®¤µ³­¤ °Áª¨µÄµ¦Ä®o¦·µ¦ (Áª¨µÁd-d )3. ­µ¸ÉÄ®o¦·µ¦¼nµ­µ¥Â¨³¼nµÁ·ªÄ®oÄo¦·µ¦4. »¨µ¦­ÄÄµ¦Ä®o¦·µ¦¼oÄo°¥nµ¦·Ä
5. ¤¸ªµ¤­³ªÄµ¦Á oµÄo¦´¡¥µ¦®o°­¤»
6. »¨µ¦Ä®o¦·µ¦¼oÄo°¥nµ¦ªÁ¦Èª´nª¸
7. ­·É°Îµª¥ªµ¤­³ªÁn °¤¡·ªÁ°¦r °»¦rÃ­´«ª´­» ²¨² ¼´­¤´¥nµÄoÁ¤ºÉ°nµÄo¦·µ¦ ……………..

¦³´µ¦¦·µ¦°¥nµÎÉµ¸É¥°¤¦´ÅoÎÉµ­¼
1 2 3 4 567
1 2 3 4 567
1 2 3 4 567
1 2 3 4 567
1 2 3 4 567
1 2 3 4 567
1 2 3 4 5
6
7
ÎÉµ
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5

6
6
6
6
6
6
6

¦³´¦·µ¦¸É¦³­r³Åo¦´ :
­¼
7
7
7
7
7
7
7

®oµ¸É 2¦³´µ¦¦·µ¦¦·¸ÉÅo¦´µ®o°­¤» :ÎÉµ­¼
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N(3) ªµ¤Á®È °nµn°¦·µ¦¦·¸ÉÅo¦´µ­Îµ´®°­¤» ¤®µª·¥µ¨´¥¦¦¤«µ­¦r ¦»µÁ¨º°Á¡¸¥ 1 ´ªÁ¨ Ä°¨´¤r¸É 4 Â¨³oµnµ “ Å¤n¤¸ªµ¤Á®È” Á¸É¥ª´¦·µ¦¸ÉÅo¦´µ®o°­¤»¦»µÁ¨º° “ N ” ¹É°¥¼n¸Én°­»oµ¥ Â¨³° o°n°Å(1) ¦³´µ¦¦·µ¦°¥nµÎÉµ¸Énµ¥°¤¦´Åo (¦»µÁ¨º°Á¡¸¥ 1 ´ªÁ¨ Ä°¨´¤r¸É 2) (2) ¦³´µ¦¦·µ¦¸Énµ¦³­r³Åo¦´ (¦»µÁ¨º°Á¡¸¥ 1 ´ªÁ¨ Ä°¨´¤r¸É 3 )¦³´µ¦¦·µ¦°¥nµÎÉµ¸É¥°¤¦´Åo ®¤µ¥¹ ¦³´µ¦Ä®o¦·µ¦°¥nµÎÉµ¸É­»¸Énµ¡·µ¦µÂ¨oªªnµÁ¡¸¥¡° Â¨³­µ¤µ¦¥°¤¦´Åo Â¤oªnµÅ¤nÁnµ´¦³´¦·µ¦¸Énµ¦³­r³Åo¦´¦³´¦·µ¦¸É¦³­r³Åo¦´ ®¤µ¥¹¦³´¦·µ¦¸Énµo°µ¦³Åo¦´µ®o°­¤» ¹É¦³´­¼®¦º°ÎÉµ ¹Ê°¥¼n´ªµ¤o°µ¦Äµ¦Äo¦·µ¦´ÊÇ*********®¤µ¥Á®»********** ¦»µ°» o°Â­°µ¤µ¦¦³Á¤·»£µ¡µ¦¦·µ¦ °­Îµ´®°­¤» ¤®µª·¥µ¨´¥¦¦¤«µ­¦rÃ¦Â­ªµ¤·Á®È °nµÁ¸É¥ª´µ¦Ä®o¦·µ¦ °­Îµ´®°­¤» ¤®µª·¥µ¨´¥¦¦¤«µ­¦r Á¤ºÉ°Á¦¸¥Á¸¥´ªµ¤µ®ª´ °nµÃ¥¡·µ¦µ¦³´ªµ¤Ânµ °µ¦¦·µ¦ 2 ¦³´ Ã¥¡·µ¦µ¸É´ªÁ¨ Á}®¨´ ´ªÁ¨ ¤µ®¤µ¥¹¡°Ä / o°µ¦Ä¦³´¤µ ´ªÁ¨ o°¥®¤µ¥¹o°µ¦ / ¡¹¡°Ä¦³´o°¥8. »¨µ¦¤¸°´¥µ«´¥¸É¸Á­¤°
9. »¨µ¦Ä®oªµ¤­ÄÄµ¦Ä®o¦·µ¦¼oÄoÁ}¦µ¥»¨
10. ­µ¸ÉÁ¸¥­ÎµÄ®o¤¸­¤µ·Äµ¦«¹¬µ11. ¤¸ª´­»°»¦rÄµ¦Ä®o¦·µ¦¸É´­¤´¥
12.Á¤ºÉ°o°µ¦Á°­µ¦µ¸É°ºÉ¼oÄoÅo¦´¦Áª¨µ¸Éo°µ¦13. ÂoÄ®o¼oÄo¦µÁ­¤°Á¤ºÉ°¤¸µ¦Á¨¸É¥Â¨Áª¨µÄµ¦Ä®o¦·µ¦
14. ¦´¦³´ªµ¤¼o° ° o°¤¼¨­nª»¨ °¼oÄo Áno°¤¼¨Îµªµ¦¥º¤®´­º° °Ân¨³¼o°µ¤¸É¥º¤¦·
15. Ä­µ¸ÉÄ®o¦·µ¦¤¸Á°­µ¦ ®¦º°Ân¡´Â³Îµª·¸µ¦Äo®¦º° ¤¸jµ¥Â³Îµµ¦Äo¦·µ¦nµÇ
16. ­µ¤µ¦Á oµ¹¦´¡¥µ¦Ä¦¼Â··°¨ Án ªµ¦­µ¦°·Á¨È¦°·­r (Án Ebsco Host , ABI/INFORM ²¨²) ®¦º°µ o°¤¼¨ÅoÃ¥µ¦ÄoµnµÁ¦º° nµ¥°·Á°¦rÁÈ
17. ­µ¤µ¦Ä®o¦·µ¦Åo¦oªµ¤¸ÉÅo¨Åªo18. »¨µ¦¤¸ªµ¤ÁÈ¤Ä¸É³nª¥Á®¨º°¼oÄo19. ¤¸µ¦­°®¦º°Â³Îµ¼oÄoÄ ³¸ÉÄo¦·µ¦®¦º°Ád­°Á}µµ¦Á¤ºÉ°o°µ¦20. »¨µ¦®o°­¤»Á oµÄªµ¤o°µ¦ °¼oÄoÁ¤ºÉ°nµÄo¦·µ¦ ……………..

2

2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1

3

3
3
3

3

4

4
4
4

4

4

5

5
5
5

5

5

6

6
6
6

6

6

7

7
7
7

7

7

1

1
1
1

1

1

1

3

7

2

6

1

5

1

4

2

1

3

ÎÉµ
1
1
1
1
1
1

¦³´µ¦¦·µ¦°¥nµÎÉµ¸É¥°¤¦´ÅoÎÉµ­¼
1 2 3 4 5 67
1 2 3 4 5 67
1 2 3 4 5 67
1 2 3 4 5 67
1 2 3 4 5 67
1 2 3 4 5 6
7

2

2
2
2

2

2

2

2
2
2
2
2
2

3

3
3
3

3

3

3

3
3
3
3
3
3

4

4
4
4

4

4

4

4
4
4
4
4
4

5

5
5
5

5

5

5

5
5
5
5
5
5

6

6
6
6

6

6

6

6
6
6
6
6
6

¦³´¦·µ¦¸É¦³­r³Åo¦´ :

7 1

7 1
7 1
7 1

7 1

7 1

7 1

­¼
7
7
7
7
7
7

2

2
2
2

2

2

2

3

3
3
3

3

3

3

4

4
4
4

4

4

4

7

7
7
7

7

7

7

®oµ¸É 3

5 6

5 6
5 6
5 6

5 6

5 6

5 6

N

N
N
N

N

N

N

¦³´µ¦¦·µ¦¦·¸ÉÅo¦´µ®o°­¤» :
ÎÉµ
­¼
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 N
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 N
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 N
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 N
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 N
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 N

2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1

3

3
3

3

3

4

4
4

4

4

4
4

5

5
5

5

5

5
5

6

6
6

6

6

6
6

7

7
7

7

7

7
7

1

1
1

1

1

1
1

3
3

1
1

2
2

ÎÉµ
1
1

¦³´µ¦¦·µ¦°¥nµÎÉµ¸É¥°¤¦´ÅoÎÉµ­¼
1 2 3 4 5 67
1 2 3 4 5 6
7

2

2
2

2

2

2
2

2
2

3

3
3

3

3

3
3

3
3

4

4
4

4

4

4
4

4
4

5

5
5

5

5

5
5

5
5

6

6
6

6

6

6
6

6
6

¦³´¦·µ¦¸É¦³­r³Åo¦´:******** ° °»­Îµ®¦´ªµ¤¦nª¤¤º°Äµ¦°Â­°µ¤**********

25.»¨µ¦­µ¤µ¦´µ¦´{®µÄµ¦¦·µ¦°¥nµÁºÉ°º°Åo26. nµ¤¸ªµ¤µ®ª´¸É³o¡ o°¤¼¨Â¨³Âª·Ä®¤nÇµµ¦Äo®o°­¤»
27. ¦¦µ¦´¬rÅoÁ¦¸¥¤¡¦o°¤Äµ¦°Îµµ¤¼oÄo28. ®o°­¤»¤¸­µ¸É­Îµ®¦´µ¦«¹¬µ°¥nµ¤¸­¤µ·Â¨³ÎµÄ®o¤¸ªµ¤·­¦oµ­¦¦r
29 »¨µ¦®o°­¤»Ä®oªµ¤Á°µÄÄ­nÁ¤ºÉ°·n°´¼oÄo24.»¨µ¦®o°­¤»­µ¤µ¦Ä®o¦·µ¦Åo°¥nµ¼o°Á®¤µ³­¤Äµ¦Ä®o¦·µ¦Á¡¸¥¦´ÊÂ¦Ánµ´Ê(Å¤no°ÂoÅ ®¦º°®µ o°¤¼¨Á¡·É¤Á·¤°¸Á}¦´Ê¸É­°®¦º°­µ¤)

21. »¨µ¦­µ¤µ¦­¦oµªµ¤¤´ÉÄÄ®o´¼oÄoÁ¤ºÉ°Äo¦·µ¦22. »¨µ¦®o°­¤»­n¤°¦·µ¦Åo¦µ¤Áª¨µ¸É­´µ´¼oÄo23. ¦¦µ¦´¬r¤¸ªµ¤¦¼oÄµ¦°Îµµ¤ °¼oÄoÁ¤ºÉ°nµÄo¦·µ¦ ……………..

7 1

7 1
7 1

7 1

7 1

7 1
7 1

2

2
2

2

2

2
2

3

3
3

3

3

3
3

4

4
4

4

4

4
4

7

7
7

7

7

N

N
N

N

N

7 N
7 N

®oµ¸É 4

5 6

5 6
5 6

5 6

5 6

5 6
5 6

¦³´µ¦¦·µ¦¸ÉÅo¦´µ®o°­¤» :­¼ ÎÉµ­¼
7 1 2 34 5 6 7 N
7 1 2 34 5 6 7 N