Sam Houston State University
objective determine relationship librarians selfassessment liaison responsibilities facultys satisfaction liaisons performance factors influencing perceptionsx0d x0d design webbased survey questionnaire x0d x0d setting survey conducted internet email invitations x0d x0d subjects 354 librarians 140 faculty members selected universities colleges united statesx0d x0d methods 602 colleges universities selected based institution size degrees offered financial status using us department educations 2008 institution data institution randomly assigned one three subject designations chemistry psychology english randomly selected faculty member designated subject department corresponding subject liaison librarian liaison contacted survey x0d x0d institution websites used locate faculty liaisons list liaisons could found librarian websites available contact list randomly selected instead chosen individuals invited via email april 2010 participate online survey survey closed midmay two followup emails sent neither responded asked removed contact list survey questionnaire delivered lime survey platform consisted 53 items 15 questions x0d x0d main results survey overall response rate 410 588 librarians 233 faculty three hundred four 354 librarians surveyed 859 selfidentified liaisons although researchers unable identify 61 library websites x0d x0d liaisons surveyed responsibilities areas collection development 961 instruction 872 reference 826 provided average eight types liaison services fall categories liaisons worked average four academic departments m412 sd298 spent approximately 10 hours per week m1036 sd968 subject responsibilities x0d x0d majority liaisons felt successful 625 successful 138 liaison services either satisfied 507 satisfied 122 liaison relationship departments email 972 liaisons frequently cited communication channel frequency contact departments highest correlation gamma 0567 p lt 005 liaisons perception performancesx0d x0d 140 faculty surveyed 104 indicated library liaisons 663 contact liaison within previous 6 months faculty knew liaison name gamma 0668 p lt 005 recent contact liaison gamma 048 satisfied liaison services faculty received services liaisons gamma 0521 also indicated greater satisfaction received fewer services x0d x0d faculty assigned higher importance liaisons three liaison services faculty participation collection development new publication notices copyright information hand liaisons ranked importance information literacyrelated services including inclass library instruction sessions integration library instruction curriculum much higher faculty x0d x0d furthermore 66 pairs liaisons corresponding subject faculty completed surveys fortynine faculty members matched pairs knew liaisons satisfied liaison services however relationships correlations faculty satisfaction liaisons liaisons assessment performance could found responses matched faculty liaison pairsx0d x0d conclusion study highlighted disparity facultys librarians perceptions library liaison programs notably statistically significant relationships liaisons perception satisfaction work faculty members satisfaction liaison services faculty liaisons also differed assigned importance various types liaison servicesx0d x0d moreover facultys satisfaction liaison services correlated frequency contact number services received liaisons satisfaction translate approval library statistically significant relationship could found facultys familiarity interaction liaisons satisfaction libraries overall