Page 155 - Proceedings-edit-2021_09_20-final
P. 155
© Proceedings of the Ruhuna Quality Assurance Sessions 2021 (RUQAS 2021)
st
21 September 2021
Questionnaires 4 and 5 were adapted from LibQUAL+tool (Association of Research Libraries, n.d.)
rephrasing the survey statements to fit the local environment with the focus on service provider
approach and service user approach respectively. They were aimed to measure the librarian’s
perception (PSQ) and user’s perception (USQ) of service quality of their libraries.
Competitive
Capabilities
(CC)
Resource Dynamic
Capabilities Capabilities
(RC) (DC)
Agility
Academic Library Capabilities
(AC)
Service Quality
(ALSQ)
Provider's
Service Quality
(PSQ)
Perceived Quality
(PQ)
User's Service
Quality
(USQ)
Figure 1: SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1: Service Quality model for university libraries
Questionnaire 1 (CC) contained four sub-variables viz, Valuable, Rare, Inimitable, and Organized
(Barney 1991), and 16 items to measure them (Arachchige, 2021). Questionnaire 2 (DC) included
three sub-variables viz. Sensing, Seizing, and Reconfiguring (Teece et al.) and 14 items to measure
them. Questionnaire 3 (AC) included three sub-variables viz. Robust strategy, Adaptive design, and
Cohesive Leadership (Worley and Lawler, 2009; Najrani 2016) and 16 items to measure them. Each of
the questionnaires 4 (PSQ) and 5 (USQ) included three sub-variables viz. Service effect, Information
Control, and Library as Place and 22 item statements to measure the perceived service quality. The
zone of tolerance subscales: the minimum expected level and desired level of quality were ignored as
they were confused to respondents and only the perceived level was selected for measuring of the
service quality level. All the 90 survey item statements (CC-16+DC-14+AC-16+PSQ-22+USQ-22=90)
were measured on 7 points Likert type scaling where 1= Strongly Disagree, 2=Generally Disagree, 3=
Disagree to a certain extent, 4= Neither agree nor Disagree, 5= Agree to a certain extent, 6=Generally
Agree, and 7=Strongly Agree.
138
