Factor structure and psychometric properties of a Spanish version of LibQUAL+™
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose LibQUAL is a service‐quality assessment instrument developed by the Association of Research Libraries in partnership with Texas A&M University Library and has been used in numerous institutions. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate a Spanish version of the scale in terms of its structure, reliability, and validity. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected among students at a well‐known Mexican university. A total of 374 completed questionnaires were used in the analyses. Library service quality was measured using 22 items taken directly from the 2004 version of the LibQUAL scale. The back‐translation method was used to translate the original English version of LibQUAL into Spanish. Data were analysed using SPSS 16.0 and EQS 6.1 in the exploratory and confirmatory stages, respectively. Findings The study findings show that the Spanish version of the LibQUAL instrument actually consists of four dimensions: “affect of service”; “information access”; “personal control”; and “library as place”. The results support the reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and nomological validity of the proposed Spanish version of the scale. Originality/value This is the first study to empirically evaluate and find support for the convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity of a Spanish version of the LibQUAL scale.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it