Purpose This research was originally conducted as the author’s dissertation work at the Ohio University. The author explored LibQUAL+ results from two separate institutions with different Carnegie Classifications, and therefore different academic missions, to look for relationships between patron types, Carnegie Classifications, and scores across the minimum, perceived, and desired questions of the information control (IC) component of the LibQUAL+ instrument. By comparing results from a library affiliated with a research institution to one from a campus more focused on teaching and learning, a school going through the shift from one focus to another would be better able to anticipate changes related to patron needs. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach A three-way between-within subjects ANOVA was conducted. The first between-subjects variable was patron type, which included undergraduate, graduate, and faculty. The second between-subjects variable was Carnegie Classification, which included the two classifications of RU_H and Master’s_M. The within-subjects variable had three levels, which in this case functioned as three dependent variables made up of the mean or composite score of the combined eight questions included in the IC portion of LibQUAL+, broken in the three categories of minimum, perceived, and desired. An additional breakdown shows that 499 were undergraduate students, 137 were graduate students, and 197 were faculty. Findings The results of the study indicated that Carnegie Classification has no significant effect on how undergraduate, graduate, and faculty respond to the three levels of the IC component of the LibQUAL+ survey. As other studies have shown however, there were significant differences with regard to patron-level responses. For a more comprehensive look at all seven research questions and their answers, please see the complete dissertation here: http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ohiou1354726349 Research limitations/implications This study is limited in size and scope because of the limitations of the method of analysis. A broader study using the same analysis would be difficult because of the impracticality of adding, for example, additional Carnegie Classifications into the equation. A significant limitation is that LibQUAL+ results are not typically compared across institutions as the respondents are commenting on separate collections and services. This was minimized by choosing institutions that belong to the same very strong consortial system and have an interlibrary loan system in place which essentially creates one enormous collection for all to share. Practical implications Perhaps more significant than the findings themselves is the method of analysis used, as it is one that while complicated statistically, is relatively easy to explain by using the split-plot studies conducted by R.A. Fisher on which the analysis is based as a starting point. The author have found that conceptually it is easier for those without a statistical background to relate to images of potato fields with varying types of potatoes and fertilizer than Carnegie Classifications, patron types, and the multi-level components of LibQUAL+ results. Originality/value It would be difficult to speak to the originality of the proposal, but the author would say that a possible outcome would be a discussion of the value of translatable results that speak to broader audiences, particularly those outside library settings. Methods of analysis that can be explained in ways that do not involve the word ANOVA have value and will add to a stronger understanding of research questions and results by decision makers.

中文翻译：

---

土豆到顾客：使用Fisher的农业分裂图模型的变体探索LibQUAL +的信息控制维度

目的这项研究最初是作为作者在俄亥俄州大学的论文而进行的。作者探讨了来自两个具有不同卡内基分类的独立机构的LibQUAL +结果，因此也具有不同的学术使命，以寻找顾客类型，卡内基分类和分数之间在信息控制（IC）组件的最小，可感知和期望问题之间的关系。 LibQUAL +仪器的功能。通过将研究机构附属图书馆的结果与更专注于教学的校园中的结果进行比较，一所从一个重点转移到另一个重点的学校将能够更好地预测与顾客需求有关的变化。本文旨在讨论这些问题。设计/方法/方法进行了受试者之间的三向ANOVA。受试者之间的第一个变量是顾客类型，其中包括大学生，研究生和教职员工。第二个主题间变量是卡内基分类，其中包括RU_H和Master's_M的两个分类。受试者内部变量具有三个级别，在这种情况下，它们充当三个因变量，由LibQUAL + IC部分中包含的八个问题的平均或综合得分组成，分为三个类别，分别为最小值，感知和想要的。另一项细分显示，本科生499名，研究生137名，教职工197名。调查结果研究结果表明，卡内基分类法对本科生，研究生和教职员工对LibQUAL +调查IC成分的三个层次的反应没有显着影响。然而，正如其他研究表明的那样，顾客级别的响应存在显着差异。要更全面地了解所有七个研究问题及其答案，请在此处查看完整的论文：http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ohiou1354726349研究局限/意义该研究的规模和范围有限由于分析方法的局限性。由于将等额外的卡内基分类添加到方程中是不切实际的，因此使用相同分析进行更广泛的研究将很困难。一个重要的限制是，由于受访者对单独的馆藏和服务发表评论，因此通常不会在各个机构之间比较LibQUAL +的结果。通过选择属于同一个非常强大的联合体系统并具有馆际互借系统的机构，可以最大程度地减少这种情况，该系统实质上创建了一个巨大的集合供所有人共享。实际意义所使用的分析方法可能比调查结果本身更重要，因为它虽然统计上很复杂，但使用RA Fisher进行的剖分研究相对容易解释，该分析是基于此进行的。观点。作者发现，从概念上讲，那些没有统计学背景的人比起卡内基分类，顾客类型和LibQUAL +结果的多层次成分，更容易将马铃薯和化肥类型与马铃薯田有关。独创性/价值很难说提案的独创性，但作者会说，可能的结果将是讨论可翻译结果的价值，该价值可与更广泛的读者交流，尤其是在图书馆外的读者。可以用不涉及方差分析这个词的方式来解释的分析方法具有价值，并将使决策者对研究问题和结果有更深入的了解。