‘Service Quality’ and its influence in Library and Information Science discipline are spectacular when studied intensively. In this study, researchers adopted the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards review method and introduced a novel Initialization, Conceptualization, Actualisation) (ICA) framework for meta-narrative studies. This method would act as a boon particularly to the existing methods of conducting meta-narrative studies in social sciences in general and library sciences in particular. A total of 49 research articles were selected from Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases, covering a span of 5 years, that is, 2015–2019, published in the domain of library service quality. An extensive in-depth analysis of selected publications was carried out under seven categories (i.e. library, library services, quality, ServQUAL, LibQUAL+, user satisfaction and users’ expectations), which were generated using the VOS-Viewer software and ‘Review Tags’ (manually generated using OneNote). The seven categories further identify a total of 27 sub-categories. The quantitative findings revealed that all the 49 reviewed publications were published in 27 journals. All the journals have been indexed in the Scopus database, whereas 15 journals containing the remaining 22 publications are indexed in both WoS and Scopus databases. This study unfolds a transverse trend in library service quality. It would be beneficial for the library managers to sustain libraries’ service quality and set a benchmark in the said field.
AfthanorhanAAwangZRashidN, et al. (2019) Assessing the effects of service quality on customer satisfaction. Management Science Letters9(1): 13–24.
2.
AlhaderiSIshakKAFawziDA, et al. (2017) Library’s resources and library’s service quality an important determinants for students’ expectation towards students academic performance. International Journal of Economic Research14(19): 13–32.
3.
AndaleebSSSimmondsPL (1998) Explaining user satisfaction with academic libraries: Strategic implications. College & Research Libraries59(2): 156–167.
4.
AsemiAKazempourZRiziHA (2010) Using LibQUAL +TM to improve services to libraries: A report on academic libraries of Iran experience. The Electronic Library28(4): 568–579.
5.
BaadaFN-ABaayelPBekoeS, et al. (2019) Users’ perception of the quality of public library services in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana: An application of the LibQUAL+ model. Library Philosophy and Practice: 1–34. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2496
6.
BaeK-JChaS-J (2015) Analysis of the factors affecting the quality of service in public libraries in Korea. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science47(3): 173–186.
7.
CabrerizoFJLópez-GijónJMartínezMA, et al. (2017) A fuzzy linguistic extended LibQUAL+ model to assess service quality in academic libraries. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making16(1): 225–244.
8.
CardNA (2012) An introduction to meta-analysis. In: KennyDALittleTD (eds) Applied Meta-Analysis for Social Science Research. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 1–15.
9.
ChenY-T (2016) Applying the DEMATEL approach to identify the focus of library service quality: A case study of a Taiwanese academic library. The Electronic Library34(2): 315–331.
10.
ChenY-TChouT-Y (2011) Applying GRA and QFD to improve library service quality. The Journal of Academic Librarianship37(3): 237–245.
11.
ChoshalySHMirabolghasemiM (2018) Using SEM-PLS to assess users satisfaction of library service quality: Evidence from Malaysia. Library Management40(3–4): 240–250.
12.
ColemanVXiaoYDBairL, et al. (1997) Toward a TQM paradigm: Using SERVQUAL to measure library service quality. College & Research Libraries58(3): 237–251.
13.
CookCHeathFM (2001) Users’ perceptions of library service quality: A LibQUAL+ qualitative study. Library Trends49(4): 548–584.
14.
CookCThompsonB (2000) Reliability and validity of SERVQUAL scores used to evaluate perceptions of library service quality. The Journal of Academic Librarianship26(4): 248–258.
15.
CookCThompsonB (2001) Psychometric properties of scores from the web-based LibQUAL+ study of perceptions of library service quality. Library Trends49(4): 585–604.
16.
CookCHeathFMThompsonB (2001a) Users’ hierarchical perspectives on library service quality: A ‘LibQUAL+’ study. College & Research Libraries62(2): 147–153.
17.
CookCHeathFMThompsonB (2002) Score norms for improving library service quality: A LibQUAL+™ study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy2(1): 13–26.
18.
CookCHeathFMThompsonB, et al. (2001b) The search for new measures: The ARL LibQUAL+ project – A preliminary report. Portal: Libraries and the Academy1(1): 103–112.
19.
CristobalAS (2018) Expectations on library services, library quality (LibQual) dimension and library customer satisfaction: Relationship to customer loyalty. Library Philosophy and Practice: 1–24. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1706
20.
CroninJJTaylorSA (1992) Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing56(3): 55–68.
21.
DashNKPadhiP (2016) LSQA scale: A tool for measuring users’ perceptions of service quality in libraries. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology36(4): 181–193.
22.
DavidoffFBataldenPBStevensD, et al. (2008) Publication guidelines for improvement studies in health care: Evolution of the SQUIRE project. Annals of Internal Medicine149(9): 670–676.
23.
De JagerK (2015) Place matters: Undergraduate perceptions of the value of the library. Performance Measurement and Metrics16(3): 289–302.
24.
DetlorBBallK (2015) Getting more value from the LibQUAL+® survey: The merits of qualitative analysis and importance-satisfaction matrices in assessing library patron comments. College & Research Libraries76(6): 796–810.
25.
FurrerOLiuBS-CSudharshanD (2000) The relationships between culture and service quality perceptions: Basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and resource allocation. Journal of Service Research2(4): 355–371.
26.
GathoniNVan der WaltT (2019) Evaluating library service quality at the Aga Khan University library: Application of a total quality management approach. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science51: 123–136.
27.
GlassGV (1976) Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher5: 3–8.
28.
GravesT (2017) No satisfaction? But we try, and we try, and we try!Serials Review43(3–4): 246–250.
29.
GreenhalghTRobertGMacFarlaneF, et al. (2004) Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly82(4): 581–629.
30.
GreenhalghTRobertGMacFarlaneF, et al. (2005) Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: A meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Social Science & Medicine61(2): 417–430.
31.
GreenwoodJTWatsonAPDennisM (2011) Ten years of LibQual: A study of qualitative and quantitative survey results at the University of Mississippi 2001–2010. The Journal of Academic Librarianship37(4): 312–318.
32.
GriadhiMHWSuarniNKMarhaeniAN, et al. (2018) The effect of library services quality towards achievement motivation and learning achievement of Undiksha students on Bali-Indonesia. Library Philosophy and Practice: 1–23. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1822
33.
GuderCS (2017) Potatoes to patrons: Using a variation of Fisher’s agricultural split-plot model to explore the information control dimension of LibQUAL+. Performance Measurement and Metrics18(2): 96–102.
34.
HaidichAB (2010) Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia14(1): 29–37.
35.
HarunaBKiranKTahiraM (2017) Modelling web-based library service quality and user loyalty in the context of a developing country. The Electronic Library35(3): 507–519.
36.
HossainMJ (2016) Determining the key dimensions for evaluating service quality and satisfaction in academic libraries. International Information & Library Review48(3): 176–189.
37.
HossainMJ (2018) Redefining expectancy disconfirmation theory using LIS SERVQUAL+: An integrated framework for evaluating library service quality and user satisfaction. International Information & Library Review51: 203–216.
38.
HubbardWJWalterDE (2005) Assessing library services with LibQUAL+: A case study. The Southeastern Librarian53(1): 35–46.
39.
JacksonB (2015) University rankings: How well do they measure library service quality?Portal: Libraries and the Academy15(2): 315–330.
40.
JankowskaMAHertelKYoungNJ (2006) Improving library service quality to graduate students: LibQUAL+™ survey results in a practical setting. Portal: Libraries and the Academy6(1): 59–76.
41.
JeevanVKJ (2015) Theoretical framework for performance evaluation of university libraries in India. New Library World116(9–10): 540–563.
42.
KhanBTripathiT (2016) Performance audit through LibQUAL+ technique: The experience of Burdwan University and Visva-Bharati library users. Library Philosophy and Practice: 1–43. Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1406
43.
KhaolaPMabilikoaneM (2015) Perception of library service quality, satisfaction and frequency of use of library resources. Inkanyiso: Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences7(1): 44–52.
44.
KimS-BKimD-Y (2016) The impacts of corporate social responsibility, service quality, and transparency on relationship quality and customer loyalty in the hotel industry. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility1: 39–55.
45.
KumarAMahajanP (2019a) Evaluating library service quality of University of Kashmir: A LibQUAL+ survey. Performance Measurement and Metrics20(1): 60–71.
46.
KumarAMahajanP (2019b) Library performance assessment of service quality through LibQUAL: The case of Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak (India). Library Philosophy and Practice: 1–18. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2638
47.
KyrillidouMPerssonAC (2006) The new library user in Sweden: A LibQUAL+™ study at Lund University. Performance Measurement and Metrics7(1): 45–53.
48.
LilburnJ (2017) Ideology and audit culture: Standardized service quality surveys in academic libraries. Portal: Libraries and the Academy17(1): 91–110.
49.
LincolnYS (2002) Insights into library services and users from qualitative research. Library & Information Science Research24(1): 3–16.
50.
LutherM (2015) Comment sifting: Pragmatic qualitative analysis of LibQUAL + comments. Library Hi Tech News32(9): 8–13.
51.
McCaffreyC (2019) Transforming the university library one step at a time: A ten year LibQUAL + review. New Review of Academic Librarianship25(1): 59–75.
52.
McCaffreyCBreenM (2016) Quiet in the library: An evidence-based approach to improving the student experience. Portal: Libraries and the Academy16(4): 775–791.
53.
MalikBA (2021) Employability skill needs in library and information science: A systematic literature review. In: MushtaqMAnsariSN (eds) Employability Skills and Competencies of Working Professionals: Curriculum and Emerging Trends. Sivakasi, India: Sunrise Publications, pp. 35–61.
54.
MallyaJPatwardhanV (2018) Hospitality students’ perception of college library service quality: Importance-performance analysis. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology38(2): 125–131.
55.
MallyaJPayiniV (2018) An empirical study of the overall satisfaction of hospitality students towards library services. Library Philosophy and Practice: 1–14. Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2029
56.
MallyaJPayiniV (2019) Evaluation of students’ perceptions of library service quality using LibQUAL model: The case study in Hospitality Institute in India. Library Philosophy and Practice: 1–10. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2920
57.
ManuelaLaFataCLupoT (2017) A combined fuzzy-SEM evaluation approach to identify the key drivers of the academic library service quality in the digital technology era: An empirical study. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology68(10): 2425–2438.
58.
Mat DahanSTaibMYMohd ZainudinN, et al. (2016) Surveying users’ perception of academic library services quality: A case study in Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP) library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship42(1): 38–43.
59.
MirghafooriSHIzadiMRDaeiA (2018) Analysis of the barriers affecting the quality of electronic services of libraries by VIKOR, FMEA and entropy combined approach in an intuitionistic-fuzzy environment. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems34(4): 2441–2451.
60.
MoherDCookDJEastwoodS, et al. (2000) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Onkologie23: 597–602.
61.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ, et al. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine151(4): 264–269.
62.
MohindraRKumarA (2015) User satisfaction regarding quality of library services of A.C. Joshi Library, Punjab University, Chandigarh. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology35(1): 54–60.
63.
MooreMT (2017) Constructing a sentiment analysis model for LibQUAL+ comments. Performance Measurement and Metrics18(1): 78–87.
64.
NagataHSatohYGerrardS, et al. (2004) The dimensions that construct the evaluation of service quality in academic libraries. Performance Measurement and Metrics5(2): 53–65.
65.
Nasibi-SisHValizadeh-HaghiSZareS, et al. (2019) Service quality assessment of hospital libraries: A LibQUAL+ survey. Library Philosophy and Practice9: 1–22.
66.
NatesanPAertsX (2016) Can library users distinguish between minimum, perceived, and desired levels of service quality? Validating LibQUAL+® using multitrait multimethod analysis. Library & Information Science Research38(1): 30–38.
67.
NatesanPPonceHFChavezA (2015) When are LibQUAL+® and LibQUAL+® Lite scores psychometrically comparable?Library & Information Science Research37(1): 21–27.
68.
NejatiMNejatiM (2008) Service quality at University of Tehran Central Library. Library Management29(6–7): 571–582.
69.
NiteckiDA (1996) Changing the concept and measure of service quality in academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship22(3): 181–190.
70.
NiteckiDAHernonP (2000) Measuring service quality at Yale University’s libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship26(4): 259–273.
71.
OrrRH (1973) Measuring the goodness of library services: A general framework for considering quantitative measures. Journal of Documentation29(3): 315–332.
72.
ParasuramanABerryLLZeithamlVA (1991) Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing67(4): 420–450.
73.
ParasuramanAZeithamlVABerryLL (1985) A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing49(4): 41–50.
74.
ParasuramanAZeithamlVABerryLL (1988) SERVQUAL: A multiple- item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing64(1): 12–40.
PartapBJoshiMK (2017) Assessing library service quality at Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS), Faridkot: A LibQUAL+™ study. Journal of Knowledge & Communication Management7(1): 49–64.
77.
PourahmadAANeshatMHasaniMR (2016) Using LibQUAL model for improving the level of students’ satisfaction from quality of services in academic libraries: A case study in North Khorasan Province, Iran. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management15(1): 1650011.
RafiMAhmadKMingZJ (2020) Increasing or decreasing reading trend: An overview of the current status of the public libraries in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Library Management42: 214–232.
80.
RamezaniAGhazimirsaeedSJAzadehF, et al. (2018) A meta-analysis of service quality of Iranian University libraries based on the LibQUAL model. Performance Measurement and Metrics19(3): 186–202.
81.
RamezaniMAhmadiFMohammadiE, et al. (2014) Spiritual care in nursing: A concept analysis. International Nursing Review61(2): 211–219.
82.
RehmanSU (2012) Understanding the expectations of Pakistani libraries users: A LIBQUAL study. Library Philosophy and Practice. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/732/
RosenthalRDiMatteoMR (2001) Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology52: 59–82.
85.
RosenthalRRubinDB (1978) Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences1(3): 377–386.
86.
SamsuddinSFShaffrilHAMFauziA (2020) Heigh-ho, heigh-ho, to the rural libraries we go! – A systematic literature review. Library and Information Science Research42(1): 100997.
87.
SchulzKFAltmanDGMoherD (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ340(7748): c332.
88.
SinS-CJKimK-S (2008) Use and non-use of public libraries in the information age: A logistic regression analysis of household characteristics and library services variables. Library & Information Science Research30(3): 207–215.
89.
SinghR (2012) Status and challenges of public libraries’ automation in Punjab. International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology2(2): 146–152.
90.
SmithMLGlassGV (1977) Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychologist32(9): 752–760.
91.
SulloE (2019) Seven years of noise reduction strategies in an academic library improve students’ perceptions of quiet space, especially among graduate students. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice14(4): 179–181.
92.
TanT-SChenT-LYangPH (2017) User satisfaction and loyalty in a public library setting. Social Behavior and Personality45(5): 741–756.
93.
TeasRK (1993a) Consumer expectations and the measurement of perceived service quality. Journal of Professional Services Marketing8(2): 33–54.
94.
TeasRK (1993b) Expectations, performance evaluation, and consumers’ perceptions of quality. Journal of Marketing57(4): 18–34.
95.
ThompsonBCookC (2002) Stability of the reliability of LibQUAL+™ scores a reliability generalization meta-analysis study. Educational and Psychological Measurement62(4): 735–743.
96.
ThompsonBCookCHeathFM (2001) How many dimensions does it take to measure users’ perceptions of libraries?: A LibQUAL+ study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy1(2): 129–138.
97.
ThompsonBCookCKyrillidouM (2005) Concurrent validity of LibQUAL+™ scores: What do LibQUAL+™ scores measure?The Journal of Academic Librarianship31(6): 517–522.
98.
ThompsonBCookCThompsonRL (2002) Reliability and structure of LibQUAL+™ scores: Measuring perceived library service quality. Portal: Libraries and the Academy2(1): 3–12.
99.
TooranlooHSAyatollahASMarvastiMT (2018) Diagnosing the service quality improvement of university libraries in intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science23(3): 69–91.
100.
VaidyaPMalikBAAliPMN (2021) Characteristics and trends in literature of library service quality as reflected in Scopus. The Serials Librarian. Epub ahead of print 13 April. DOI: 10.1080/0361526X.2021.1882642.
101.
Von ElmEAltmanDGEggerM, et al. (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Epidemiology18(6): 800–804.
102.
VoorbijH (2012) The use of LibQUAL+ by European research libraries. Performance Measurement and Metrics13(3): 154–168.
103.
WangJYuanRShiH (2019) Quantitative representation of perception and evaluation method for service quality in university library under 4-D space. Library Hi Tech. Epub ahead of print 6 December. DOI: 10.1108/LHT-09-2018-0121.
104.
WongGGreenhalghTWesthorpG, et al. (2013) RAMESES publication standards: Meta-narrative reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing69(5): 987–1004.
105.
XiQLiXZhaoH, et al. (2016a) Service quality assessment at the Nanjing Agricultural University based on LibQUAL. Science & Technology Libraries35(4): 338–349.
106.
XiQMaoLZhangB, et al. (2016b) Multi-library union, promoting ILL/DD of the Chinese science digital library. Interlending and Document Supply44(4): 161–168.
107.
XiQZhaoHHuY, et al. (2018) Case studies and comparison between two models for assessing library service quality. The Electronic Library36(6): 1099–1113.
108.
YanWHuYHuC (2015) Using SEM and TCM to improve services to libraries: A comparative study on Chinese academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship41(5): 558–566.
109.
ZiaeiSKorjanFR (2018) Assessment of services quality in Tabriz central library from the users point of view based on LibQual model. Library Philosophy and Practice: 1–15. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1799
