Figure 2illustrates that six of fifteen questions garnered a majority pos- itive response. Three of fifteen questions garnered a majority no determi- nation made response, while six of fifteen questions garnered a majority negative response.
Five of the six majority positive response questions were Questions 6–9 and 11 which were all stated in a negative manner. The negatively stated questions evaluated respondent’s perceptions to the converse information sought by the researcher. The negatively stated questions had the lowest response rates; however, they did not yield the lowest perceived mean re- sponse value of the 15 questions. Question 14, regarding the Legislature’s role in distributing PM, yielded a mean response value 56.9% lower than any of the negatively stated questions. Overall, HLA perceptions of the use and effectiveness of PM in Florida public libraries was neutral at best, with respondents being equally distributed between the extremes of perception (i.e. effective, not effective).
When combined with the findings regarding resource expenditure and staff time commitments to conducting and implementing PM in Florida public libraries, the study findings seemed to suggest that substantial re- sources were used annually to conduct a process (PM) that was not per- ceived to be effective by at least half of those who conducted the process and utilized its results.
coefficients. Question 4 dealt with the effectiveness of PM results to report the total organizational impact of the library. Questions 16 and 18 dealt with staff time in the PM process and the amount of training time provided to staff regarding PM.
Table 4. Correlation Analyses of HLA Experience and Various PM Aspects.
Question Number
Correlation Value for HLA Experience
Question Number
Correlation Value for HLA Experience
1 (0.03) 13 0.06
2 (0.03) 14 (0.07)
3 0.00 15 0.11
4 0.25 16 0.27
5 0.00 17 0.13
6 (0.06) 18 0.29
7 (0.04) 19 (0.22)
8 0.18 20 (0.13)
9 0.20 25 (0.02)
10 (0.18) 26 0.07
11 (0.04) 27 (0.08)
12 0.17
Values within parentheses denote negative numbers.
Table 5. Correlation Analysis of SP level, SA status, and Various PM Aspects.
Question Number
Correlation of SP Level
Correlation of SA Status
Question Number
Correlation of SP Level
Correlation of SA Status
1 0.28 0.23 13 0.28 (0.12)
2 0.31 0.36 14 (0.02) 0.00
3 0.03 0.28 15 0.16 0.17
4 0.20 0.31 16 0.57 (0.02)
5 0.46 0.11 17 0.33 (0.02)
6 0.08 (0.16) 18 0.24 (0.30)
7 (0.18) (0.04) 19 (0.10) (0.19)
8 (0.33) (0.06) 20 (0.28) 0.03
9 0.02 (0.03) 25 (0.22 (0.06)
10 0.01 0.06 26 (0.19) (0.01)
11 0.18 0.21 27 (0.10) (0.01)
12 0.30 0.16
Values within parentheses denote negative numbers.
The results of the correlation analysis indicated 11 of the 23 correlation coefficients were negative. The correlation coefficients for HLA experience and Questions 10, 19, and 20 had the lowest-ranking negative correlation coefficients. Question 10 dealt with respondent’s perceptions of the degree of consensus between HLA regarding the types of performance measures used to report service quality. Questions 19 and 20 dealt with the frequency of PM in regard to determining customer satisfaction and technology evaluation.
A correlation coefficient was calculated for the total number of reported performance measures being used by each respondent, obtained in Question 21 of the attitudinal survey, and the amount of HLA experience of each respondent in order to address sub-question 1 of overarching Question 4.
The correlation coefficient was calculated to be –0.18, which indicated that the relationship between the number of performance measures used by re- spondents and the HLA experience of the respondent was not significant.
Table 5 illustrates only one of the correlation coefficients determined a significant relationship, defined as a correlation coefficient lower than –0.50 and higher than +0.50, existed between SP level or SA receiving status and the attitudinal survey scores for Questions 1–20 and 25–27. The correlation between scores from Question 16 and SP level resulted in a correlation coefficient of 0.57. Therefore, there was a positive correlation between the size of the SP of the LAU and the amount of resources allocated to conduct PM within the survey respondents. This relationship could be explained by the overall size of the budget for a larger LAU as opposed to that of a smaller LAU and the higher PM and administrative experience levels of the HLA in larger SP LAU.
The correlation coefficients for SP level and Questions 5, 16, and 17 were the highest-ranking positive correlation coefficients for SP-level calcula- tions. Question 5 dealt with the priority of PM in respondent’s LAU.
Questions 16 and 17 dealt with staff time in the PM process and the budget amounts allocated to conducting PM. The correlation coefficients for SA status and Questions 2, 3, and 4 were the highest-ranking positive corre- lation coefficients for SP-level calculations. Question 2 dealt with the re- spondent’s perception of the results of PM in their LAU. Question 3 dealt with the results of the PM process providing stakeholders with an accurate account of the overall quality of library service. Question 4 dealt with the results of the PM process effectively reporting the total organizational im- pact of the library.
The results of the correlation analysis indicated that 8 of the 23 corre- lation coefficients calculated with SP level were negative and that 12 of the 23 correlation coefficients calculated with SA receiving LAU status were LARRY NASH WHITE 112
negative. The correlation coefficients for SP level and Questions 8, 20, and 25 had the lowest-ranking negative correlation coefficients for SP-level cal- culations. Question 8 dealt with respondent’s perceptions of PM undermin- ing the library’s ability to provide effective service. Question 20 dealt with the frequency of technology evaluation. Question 25 dealt with what types of PM information did the respondent’s governing body require in order for the library to demonstrate effective service. The correlation coefficients for SA status and Questions 6, 18, and 19 had the lowest-ranking negative correlation coefficients for SA status calculations. Question 6 dealt with the respondent’s perceptions of whether PM would be used if not required by governing bodies or funding agencies. Question 18 dealt with the amount of time allocated to training staff in PM. Question 19 dealt with the frequency of customer service measurement in respondent’s LAU.
The data analysis for several of the survey questions were designed to answer Question 4, which asked, ‘‘Are there any correlations between the amount of experience of head library administrators and the usage and per- ceptions of impact of performance measurement in Florida’s public librar- ies?’’ Six sub-questions were designed to collect data to address this question.
Sub-question 4.1 asked, ‘‘Is there a correlation between the amount of experience as head library administrator to the number of performance measurements used?’’ Question 21 and the ‘‘Years of Head Library Ad- ministrator Experience’’ demographic question on the attitudinal survey were used to address this question. The correlation coefficient was calcu- lated to be –0.18, indicating that no significant relationship exists between the amount of HLA experience and the number of performance measures used in respondent’s LAU.
Sub-question 4.2 asked, ‘‘Is there a correlation between the amount of experience as head library administrator to the perception of the impact of performance measures?’’ Questions 8 and 13, and the ‘‘Years of Head Li- brary Administrator Experience’’ demographic question on the attitudinal survey were used to address this question.
The correlation coefficients calculated were as follows: HLA experience and Question 8 yielded a 0.18 coefficient and HLA experience and Question 13 yielded a 0.06 coefficient. Therefore, a significant relationship, defined, as a correlation coefficient lower than 0.50 and higher than +0.50, does not exist between HLA experience and the attitudinal survey scores from Ques- tions 8 and 13.
Sub-question 4.3 asked, ‘‘Is there a correlation between the amounts of experience as head library administrator to library administrators’ perceptions of the accuracy of performance measures?’’ Questions 3, 7, 10, and 11 and the
‘‘Years of Head Library Administrator Experience’’ demographic question in the attitudinal survey were used to address this question.
The correlation coefficients calculated using HLA experience were as fol- lows: HLA experience and Question 3 yielded a 0.00 coefficient; HLA ex- perience and Question 7 yielded a 0.04 coefficient; HLA experience and Question 10 yielded a 0.18 coefficient; and HLA experience and Question 11 yielded a 0.04 coefficient. Therefore, a significant relationship, defined, as a correlation coefficient lower than 0.50 and higher than +0.50, did not exist between HLA experience and the attitudinal survey scores from Ques- tions 3, 7, 10, and 11.
Sub-question 4.4 asked, ‘‘Is there a correlation between the amounts of experience as head library administrator to library administrators’ percep- tions of the effectiveness of performance measures?’’ Question 4 and the
‘‘Years of Head Library Administrator Experience’’ demographic question in the attitudinal survey were used to address this question. The correlation coefficient was calculated to be 0.20, indicating that no significant relation- ship exists between the amount of HLA experience and the respondent’s perception of how PM results effectively report the total organizational impact of the library.
Sub-question 4.5 asked, ‘‘Is there a correlation between the amount of experience as head library administrator to library administrators’ percep- tions of the necessity of performance measures?’’ Questions 5, 6, 9, and 15 and the ‘‘Years of Head Library Administrator Experience’’ demographic question in the attitudinal survey were used to address this question.
The correlation coefficients calculated using HLA experience were as fol- lows: HLA experience and Question 5 yielded a 0.00 coefficient; HLA ex- perience and Question 6 yielded a –0.06 coefficient; HLA experience and Question 9 yielded a 0.20 coefficient; and HLA experience and Question 11 yielded a 0.18 coefficient. Therefore, a significant relationship, defined, does not exist between HLA experience and the attitudinal survey scores from Questions 5, 6, 9, and 15.
Sub-question 4.6 asked, ‘‘Is there a correlation between the amounts of experience as head library administrator to library administrators’ percep- tions of the current benefit of performance measurement in their organi- zations?’’ Questions 1, 3, 4, 12, and 13 and the ‘‘Years of Head Library Administrator Experience’’ demographic question in the attitudinal survey were designed to address this question.
The correlation coefficients calculated using HLA experience were as fol- lows: HLA experience and Question 1 yielded a 0.03 coefficient; HLA experience and Question 3 yielded a 0.00 coefficient; HLA experience and LARRY NASH WHITE 114
Question 4 yielded a 0.25 coefficient; HLA experience and Question 12 yielded a 0.17 coefficient; and HLA experience and Question 13 yielded a 0.06 coefficient, indicating that no significant relationship existed between HLA experience and the attitudinal survey scores from Questions 1, 3, 4, 12, and 13.
The data analysis for some survey questions were designed to answer overarching Question 5, which asked, ‘‘Are there any correlations between the amount of experience as head library administrator to the resources allocated to performance measurement?’’ Three sub-questions were de- signed to address this question.
Sub-question 5.1 asked, ‘‘Is there a correlation between the amount of experience as head library administrator to the total amount of staff time dedicated to conducting performance measurement?’’ Question 16 and the
‘‘Years of Head Library Administrator Experience’’ demographic question in the attitudinal survey were used to address this question. The correlation coefficient was calculated to be 0.27, thus no significant relationship existed between the amount of HLA experience and the amount of staff time al- located to conducting PM.
Sub-question 5.2 asked, ‘‘Is there a correlation between the amount of experience as head library administrator to the overall percentage of the budget dedicated to conducting performance measurement?’’ Question 17 and the ‘‘Years of Head Library Administrator Experience’’ demographic question in the attitudinal survey were used to address this question. The correlation coefficient was calculated to be 0.13, indicating that no signifi- cant relationship existed between the amount of HLA experience and the amount of budget allocated to conducting PM.
Sub-question 5.3 asked, ‘‘Is there a correlation between the amount of experience as head library administrator to the total training time provided to staff members dealing specifically with using performance measurement?’’
Question 18 and the ‘‘Years of Head Library Administrator Experience’’
demographic question in the attitudinal survey were used to address this question. The correlation coefficient was calculated to be 0.29, so, no sig- nificant relationship was established between the amount of HLA experience and the amount of staff training time dedicated to PM.