MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022146351 · doi:10.1080/02642069.2011.593167

An independent assessment of the unidimensionality, reliability, validity and factor structure of the LibQUAL+™ scale

2011· article· en· W2022146351 on OpenAlex
Miguel Morales, Riadh Ladhari, Javier Reynoso, Rosario Toro, César Sepúlveda

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueService Industries Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfirmatory factor analysisScale (ratio)PsychologyReliability (semiconductor)Sample (material)ValidityStatisticsApplied psychologySocial psychologyPsychometricsStructural equation modelingMathematicsClinical psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This empirical study provides a thorough measurement analysis of the LibQUAL+™ scale for measuring library service quality. In particular, the study assesses the unidimensionality of the scale, the scale's psychometric properties and its factor structure. Data were gathered using a self-administered questionnaire distributed to a sample of university library users: 189 in Canada and 374 in Mexico. Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the study confirms the assumption of unidimensionality in only two of the three current sub-dimensions of the scale. The results of this study also show that the LibQUAL+™ scale consists of four dimensions. The remainder of the CFA results in the study provides strong support for the general reliability and validity of the four-dimensional structure.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it