The study systematically reviews the studies based on a search of published articles from 2010 to 2021 on library service quality with the aim of determining which models of service quality are the most commonly used by librarians as a means of measuring service quality. In addition, the paper makes an effort to determine the variety of dimensions by which these qualitative evaluations were carried out, the types of libraries that have reported such qualitative studies, and the data collection strategies (research population, sample size and data collection instruments) adopted by the authors. The findings indicate that the SERVQUAL and LibQual models are the most frequently adopted models. The empathy, reliability, tangible, assurance, responsiveness, effect of library, information control and library as place are the prominent dimensions. The researchers rely heavily on questionnaire-based survey research methods with sample sizes of less than 100 respondents, mostly reported in academic libraries.
AbiliKNarenji ThaniFAfarinandehbinM (2012) Measuring university service quality by means of SERVQUAL method. Asian Journal on Quality13(3): 204–211.
2.
AbiliKNarenji ThaniFMokhtarianF, et al. (2011) Assessing quality gap of university services. Asian Journal on Quality12(2): 167–175.
3.
AdamR (2017) Assessment of library service quality and user satisfaction among undergraduate students of Yusuf Maitama Sule University (YMSU) library. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1–20.
4.
AfrinABIslamRFontaineRAH, et al. (2019) A new model of continuous improvement in total quality management from an Islamic perspective. Asian Academy of Management Journal24(1): 129–149.
5.
AfthanorhanAAwangZRashidN, et al. (2019) Assessing the effects of service quality on customer satisfaction. Management Science Letters9(1): 13–24.
6.
AfthanorhanAFoziahHMajidNA (2020) Investigating Digital Library success using the DeLone and McLean Information System Success 2.0: The analysis of common factor based structural equation modeling. Journal of Physics Conference Series1529: 042052.
7.
AhmadMAbawajyJKimT (2011) Service quality assessment in provision of library services. In: KimTAdeliHMaJ. (eds) U- and E-service, Science and Technology - Communications in Computer and Information Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp.83–92.
8.
AhmedS (2017) Service quality satisfaction: A comparative cross-sectional study of public and private university librarians in Pakistan. Libri67(4): 313–325.
9.
AhmedWSoroyaMSMalikGF (2015) Service quality of library front desk staff in medical colleges of Lahore. Library Management36(1/2): 12–22.
10.
AlamMJMezbah-ul-IslamM (2021) Service quality assessment model for academic libraries. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication70(4/5): 325–338.
11.
AliS (2015) Key library service dimensions for serving the needs of higher education students in Namibia. Performance Measurement and Metrics16(3): 263–275.
12.
ArshadAAmeenK (2010) Service quality of the University of the Punjab’s libraries: An exploration of users’ perceptions. Performance Measurement and Metrics11(3): 313–325.
13.
AsemiAKazempourZAshrafi RiziH (2010) Using LibQUAL+TM to improve services to libraries: A report on academic libraries of Iran experience. The Electronic Library28(4): 568–579.
14.
AsogwaBEUgwuCIUgwuanyiFC (2015) Evaluation of electronic service infrastructures and quality of e-services in Nigerian academic libraries. The Electronic Library33(6): 1133–1149.
15.
AwanMUMahmoodK (2013) Development of a service quality model for academic libraries. Quality & Quantity47(2): 1093–1103.
16.
BarhoumiC (2016) User acceptance of the e-information service as information resource. New Library World 117(9/10): 626–643.
17.
BiranvandAAkbar KhassehA (2013) Evaluating the service quality in the Regional Information Center for Science and Technology using the Six sigma methodology. Library Management34(1/2): 56–67.
18.
BorbelyM (2011) Measuring user satisfaction with a library system according to ISO/IEC TR 9126-4. Performance Measurement and Metrics12(3): 157–171.
19.
BoyceC (2017) Measuring perceptual (in) congruence between information service providers and users. College and Research Libraries78: 359–381.
20.
BrettleAMaden-JenkinsMAndersonL, et al. (2011) Evaluating clinical librarian services: A systematic review. Health Information and Libraries Journal28(1): 3–22.
21.
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.
22.
CabrerizoFJPérezIJLópez-GijónJ, et al. (2012) An extended LibQUAL+ model based on fuzzy linguistic information. In: TorraVNarukawaYLópezB, et al. (eds) Modeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp.90–101.
23.
ChangC (2013) Exploring the determinants of e-learning systems continuance intention in academic libraries. Library Management34(1/2): 40–55.
24.
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.
25.
ChoshalySHMirabolghasemiM (2019) Using SEM-PLS to assess users satisfaction of library service quality: Evidence from Malaysia. Library Management40: 240–250.
26.
ChuH (2015) Research methods in library and information science: A content analysis. Library & Information Science Research37(1): 36–41.
27.
CorrallS (2017) Library space assessment: A professional education case study. Performance Measurement and Metrics18(2): 127–136.
28.
CroninJJTaylorSA (1985) Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing56: 55–68
29.
DasDHandiqueK (2020) Measuring service quality in Gauhati University Library: A Servqual Analysis. Journal of International Management11(12): 885–895. DOI: 10.34218/IJM.11.12.2020.081
30.
DehdariradHGhazimirsaeidJJalalimaneshA (2020) Scholarly publication venue recommender systems: A systematic literature review. Data Technologies and Applications54(2): 169–191
31.
DilwarthJ (1993) Production and operations management: Manufacturing and services. New York: McGraw Hill.
32.
EinastoO (2014) Investigating e-service quality criteria for university library: A focus group study. New Library World115(1/2): 4–14.
33.
FanYPanneerselvamJLiuL (2017) The cost function and improvement strategies of service quality of University Library under new information environments. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Internet of Things (iThings) and IEEE Green Computing and Communications (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing (CPSCom) and IEEE Smart Data (SmartData), Exeter, UK, 21–23 June 2017, pp.208–215. New York, NY: IEEE.
34.
FithriPAdnanASyahmerV (2018) Improving public library service quality in local city of Indonesia. MATEC Web of Conferences154: 01047.
35.
Galyani MoghaddamGMoballeghiM (2008) Total quality management in library and information sectors. The Electronic Library26(6): 912–922.
36.
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(1): 123–136.
37.
GhaediRValizadeh-HaghiSAhmadiE, et al. (2020) Gaps between users expectations and their perceptions on service quality of college libraries of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, A case study. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology40(2): 479–484.
38.
GhoshM (2018) Measuring electronic service quality in India using E-S-QUAL. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management35(2): 430–445.
39.
Gómez-CruzME (2019) Electronic reference services: A quality and satisfaction evaluation. Reference Services Review47(2): 118–133.
40.
Gómez-CruzMEHarari-BetancourtVVergara-MendozaG (2020) Quality indicators and user satisfaction in university libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship46(6): 102230.
41.
GreenJPJr. (2008) Determining the reliability and validity of service quality scores in a public library context: A confirmatory approach. In: GartenEDWilliamsDENyceJMGoldenJ (eds) Advances in Library Administration and Organization. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.317–348.
42.
GrievesKHalpinM (2014) Developing a quality model at University Library Services Sunderland. Performance Measurement and Metrics15(1/2): 50–57.
43.
GuptaTKSinghV (2012) Service quality in supply chain: A review. International Journal of Engineering and Technology2(8): 10.
44.
GuthrieG (2010) Basic Research Methods : An Entry to Social Science Research. New Delhi: SAGE.
45.
HallbergASipos-ZackrissonK (2010) Improvements of public library service quality: Perspective of libraries and study centres. The TQM Journal22(1): 89–100.
46.
HarunaBKiranKTahiraM (2017) Modelling web-based library service quality and user loyalty in the context of a developing country. The Electronic Library35(3): 507–519.
47.
Helena VinagreMGaspar PintoLOchôaP (2011) Revisiting digital libraries quality: A multiple-item scale approach. Performance Measurement and Metrics12(3): 214–236.
48.
HelmanDHorowitzLR (2001) Focusing on the user for improved service quality. Science & Technology Libraries19(3–4): 207–219.
49.
HeradioRFernández-AmorósDCabrerizoFJ, et al. (2012) A review of quality evaluation of digital libraries based on users’ perceptions. Journal of Information Science38(3): 269–283.
50.
HernonPNiteckiDA (2001) Service quality: A concept not fully explored. Library Trends49(4): 687–708+778.
51.
HossainMJ (2016) Determining the key dimensions for evaluating service quality and satisfaction in academic libraries. The International Information & Library Review48(3): 176–189.
52.
HossainMJAhmedSMZ (2014) An investigation of service expectations: Developing and validating an alternative scale for service quality assessment in academic libraries. The International Information & Library Review46(1–2): 21–30.
53.
Hossain ShoebZ (2011) Identifying service superiority, zone of tolerance and underlying dimensions: Service quality attributes in a private university library in Bangladesh. Library Review60(4): 293–311.
54.
IpRKFWagnerC (2020) LibQual+® as a predictor of library success: Extracting new meaning through structured equation modeling. The Journal of Academic Librarianship46(2): 102102.
55.
JabbariLJalaliDizajiAMalekolkalamiM (2021) Gap assessment and comparison of the quality of services between central libraries of the University of Tehran and Allameh tabataba’i University. Performance Measurement and Metrics22(2): 89–105.
56.
Jaber HossainMIslamA (2012) Understanding perceived service quality and satisfaction: A study of Dhaka University Library, Bangladesh. Performance Measurement and Metrics13(3): 169–182.
57.
JunaidaIMahadirLASharunizamS (2010) Service quality performance in academic libraries. In: 2010 International Conference on Science and Social Research (CSSR), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 5–7 December 2010, pp.867–871. New York, NY: IEEE.
58.
KaurKSinghD (2011) Customer service for academic library users on the web. The Electronic Library29(6): 737–750.
59.
KeshvariMZareFarashbandiFGeraeiE (2015) Modelling influential factors on customer loyalty in public libraries: A study of West Iran. The Electronic Library33(4): 810–823.
60.
KhanAMasrekMNMahmoodK (2019) The relationship of personal innovativeness, quality of digital resources and generic usability with users’ satisfaction: A Pakistani perspective. Digital Library Perspectives35(1): 15–30.
61.
KhanAM (2012) Users’ perceptions of library effectiveness: A comparative users’ evaluation of central libraries of AMU, BHU, ALU and BBRAU. The International Information & Library Review44(2): 72–85.
62.
KhanGBhattiR (2015) Determinants of academic law libraries’ use, collections, and services among the faculty members: A case study of University of Peshawar. Collection Building34(4): 119–127.
63.
KillickSvan WeerdenAvan WeerdenF (2014) Using libqual+® to identify commonalities in customer satisfaction: The secret to success?Performance Measurement and Metrics15(1/2): 23–31.
64.
KimY-M (2011) Users’ perceptions of university library websites: A unifying view. Library & Information Science Research33(1): 63–72.
65.
KiranK (2010) Service quality and customer satisfaction in academic libraries: Perspectives from a Malaysian university. Library Review59(4): 261–273.
66.
KumarAMahajanP (2019) Evaluating library service quality of University of Kashmir: A LibQUAL+ survey. Performance Measurement and Metrics20(1): 60–71.
67.
LaneFCAndersonBPonceHF, et al. (2012) Factorial invariance of libqual+® as a measure of library service quality over time. Library & Information Science Research34(1): 22–30.
68.
LeeY-CHsiehY-FGuoY-B (2011) Using DEMATEL to implement LibQUAL+TM in evaluating library service. In: 2011 International Conference on Management and Service Science, Wuhan, China, 12–14 August 2011, pp.1–4. New York, NY: IEEE.
69.
LeonnardL (2018) The performance of servqual to measure service quality in private university. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science11(1): 16–21.
70.
LiuYXieDWangX (2012) Research on evaluation model of Digital Library Service Quality. In: JinDLinS (eds) Advances in Electronic Engineering, Communication and Management, Vol. 2. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp.267–272.
71.
LiXYangJ (2013) Application of LibQUAL+TM and FAHP on public library service quality evaluation. In: The 19th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp.853–862.
72.
LongPDHaiLNNgaDQ, et al. (2019) Measuring users’ satisfaction with University Library Services Quality: Structural Equation Modeling Approach. In: KreinovichVThachNNTrungND (eds) Beyond Traditional Probabilistic Methods in Economics. Studies in Computational Intelligence. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp.510–521.
73.
LukasovaR (2008) Measurement of citizens’ satisfaction with public sector services: The key quality dimensions of library services. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences3(9): 55–62.
74.
MadhusudhanMNagabhushanamV (2012) Web-based library services in university libraries in India: An analysis of librarians’ perspective. The Electronic Library30(5): 569–588.
75.
MairajMINaseerMM (2013) Library services and user satisfaction in developing countries: A case study. Health Information and Libraries Journal30(4): 318–326.
76.
MalakootiAslNKaffashanKakhkiMParirokhM (2021) The evaluation of the relationship between customers’ knowledge management and their loyalty to academic libraries. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication70(3): 205–224.
77.
MalikSAMalikSA (2015) SERVQUAL to measure perceptions and expectations of library users: A case study of a public university library of pakistan. International Journal of Management in Education9(3): 303.
78.
MasrekMNGaskinJE (2016) Assessing users satisfaction with web digital library: The case of Universiti Teknologi MARA. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology33(1): 36–56.
79.
MirghafooriSHSayyadiTooranlooHSaghafiS (2020) Diagnosing and routing electronic service quality improvement of academic libraries with the FMEA approach in an intuitionistic fuzzy environment. The Electronic Library38(3): 597–631.
80.
MirzaMSMahmoodK (2012) Electronic resources and services in Pakistani university libraries: A survey of users’ satisfaction. The International Information & Library Review44(3): 123–131.
81.
MohindraRAnil KumarAK (2015) User satisfaction regarding quality of library services of A.C. Joshi Library, Panjab University, Chandigarh. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology35(1): 54–60.
82.
MooreMT (2017) Constructing a sentiment analysis model for LibQUAL+ comments. Performance Measurement and Metrics18(1): 78–87.
83.
MoralesMLadhariR (2011) Comparative cross-cultural service quality: An assessment of research methodology. Journal of Service Management22(2): 241–265.
84.
MoralesMLadhariRReynosoJ, et al. (2012) An independent assessment of the unidimensionality, reliability, validity and factor structure of the libqual+™ scale. Service Industries Journal32(16): 2585–2605.
85.
MutisyaFOnyanchaOB (2020) Users’ perceived level of service at the African Union Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights library in Arusha, Tanzania. Library Management41(6/7): 531–543.
86.
NeshatNDehghaniM (2013) Review of the current gap between clients’ expectations and perceptions of received service in national library by using gap analysis model. Performance Measurement and Metrics14(1): 45–60.
87.
NohYLeeS-Y (2020) An evaluation of the library’s educational value based on the perception of public library users and librarians in Korea. The Electronic Library38(4): 677–694.
88.
PartapB (n.d) A review of service quality assessment of library and information centres. 19.
89.
PedramniaSModiramaniPGhavami GhanbarabadiV (2012) An analysis of service quality in academic libraries using LibQUAL scale: Application oriented approach, a case study in Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (MUMS) libraries. Library Management33(3): 159–167.
90.
PhippsS (2001) Beyond measuring service quality: Learning from the voices of the customers, the staff, the processes, and the organization. Library Trends49(4): 635–661.
91.
PodbrežnikMI (2014) Using SERVQUAL for public library service quality assessment. 14.
92.
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(01): 1650011.
93.
PowelsonSEReaumeRD (2012) Using the results of a satisfaction survey to demonstrate the impact of a new library service model. Health Information and Libraries Journal29(3): 223–232.
94.
RahimiASoleymaniMRHashemianA, et al. (2018) Evaluating digital libraries: A systematised review. Health Information and Libraries Journal35(3): 180–191.
95.
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.
RetnaniWEYPrasetyoBPrayogiYP, et al. (2017) Usability testing to evaluate the library’s academic web site. In: 2017 4th International Conference on Computer Applications and Information Processing Technology (CAIPT), Kuta Bali, 8–10 August 2017, pp.1–4. New York, NY: IEEE.
98.
RowleyJ (1996) Implementing TQM for library services: The issues. Aslib Proceedings48(1): 17–21.
99.
RowleyJ (2005) Making sense of the quality maze: Perspectives for public and academic libraries. Library Management26(8/9): 508–518.
100.
RoyAKhareALiuBSC, et al. (2012) An investigation of affect of service using a libqual+™ Survey and an Experimental Study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship38(3): 153–160.
101.
SaidE-NA (2016) A users’ satisfaction on the environmental performance of naturally ventilated library: A structural equation modeling approach. Indian Journal of Science and Technology9(1): 1–6.
102.
SajnaK.P.Mohamed HaneefaK. (2016) Measuring the service quality of libraries. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology41(2): 75–81.
103.
SheikhA (2014) Quality of CIIT Library Services and users’ Satisfaction: A Survey of students, faculty and staff members. Libri64(1): 49–60. DOI: 10.1515/libri-2014-0005
104.
ShiXLevyS (2005) A theory-guided approach to library services assessment. College and Research Libraries66: 266–277.
105.
ShoebZH (2010) Perceptions of library services by gender – A study in Bangladesh. Libri60(4): 331–338.
106.
SilvaDSMoraesGHSMDMakiyaIK, et al. (2017) Measurement of perceived service quality in higher education institutions: A review of HEdPERF scale use. Quality Assurance in Education25(4): 415–439.
107.
Soares-SilvaDMoraesGHSMCappellozzaA, et al. (2020) Explaining library user loyalty through perceived service quality: What is wrong?Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology71(8): 954–967.
108.
Soltani-NejadNTaheri-AzadFZarei-MaramN, et al. (2020) Developing a model to identify the antecedents and consequences of user satisfaction with digital libraries. Aslib Journal of Information Management72(6): 979–997.
109.
StokićAStojanovićDBogdanovićZ, et al. (2019) Enhancing the customer relationship management in public libraries. Library Hi Tech37(2): 251–272.
110.
SureshMMohanD (2015) Service quality and its impact on user satisfaction in Indian University Library. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Computing Research (ICCIC), Madurai, India,10–12 December 2015, pp.1–3. New York, NY: IEEE.
111.
TajediniOKhassehAAAfzaliM, et al. (2020) How to increase the loyalty of public library users? A qualitative study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science52(2): 317–330.
112.
ThompsonBCookC (2003) Two short forms of the LibQUAL+ survey: Assessing users’ perceptions of library service quality. The Library Quarterly73(4): 453–465.
113.
TooranlooHSAyatollahASMarvastiMT (2018) Diagnosing the service quality improvement of university libraries in intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science23(3): 69–91.
114.
TrivediDBhattA (2019) Quest for quality: Assessment of service quality of special academic institution library: Case study. Performance Measurement and Metrics21(1): 1–17.
115.
TwumKKAdamsMBuduS, et al. (2022) Achieving university libraries user loyalty through user satisfaction: The role of service quality. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education32(1): 54–72.
116.
VasileiouKBarnettJThorpeS, et al. (2018) Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Medical Research Methodology18: 148.
117.
WangH (2006) From “user” to “customer”: TQM in academic libraries?Library Management27(9): 606–620.
118.
WasitariniDESembiringJ (2016) Performance measurement framework of E-Library using modified quantitative models for performance measurement system (QMPMS) method for ICT infrastructure. In: 2016 International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation (ICITSI), Bandung - Bali, Indonesia, 24–27 October 2016, pp.1–6. New York, NY: IEEE.
119.
WuC-MHsiehC-LChangK-L (2013) A model for assessing the service quality of University Library websites. Mathematical Problems in Engineering2013: 1–9.
120.
XiQLiXZhaoH, et al. (2016) Service Quality Assessment at the Nanjing Agricultural University based on LibQUAL. Science & Technology Libraries35(4): 338–349.
121.
XiQZhaoHHuY, et al. (2018) Case studies and comparison between two models for assessing library service quality. The Electronic Library36(6): 1099–1113.
122.
YadavAYadavASehrawatA, et al. (2018) A statistical study to analyse the effect of services experience quality in a library on user’s behaviour. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on System, Computation, Automation and Networking (ICSCA), Pondicherry, 6–7 July 2018, pp.1–6. New York, NY: IEEE.
123.
YuT-KWuG-S (2005) An analysis for library service quality indices of technological university. Journal of Educational Media and Library Science43(1): 1–28.
124.
MehrjerdiYZ (2017) Library performance evaluation in a dynamic environment using patron satisfaction. The Electronic Library35(2): 374–390.
125.
ZhaiXWangJ (2016) Improving relations between users and libraries: A survey of Chinese academic libraries. The Electronic Library34(4): 597–616.
126.
ZhangYLBiRFXiaoM (2017) Studying on enhancing readers’ Satisfaction Model of electronic service quality in library based on LibQUAL+ and kano. Procedia Engineering174: 260–266.
