Discrepancies Found in Librarian and Patron Perceptions of Successful Virtual Chat Interactions

Abstract

A Review of: 

Owens, E., & Brooks, K. (2025). Comparison of librarian and patron ratings of synchronous chat interactions. College & Research Libraries, 86(4), 567–585. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.86.4.567 

Objective – To compare librarian and patron assessments of virtual chat interactions and identify trends in librarian and patron ratings. 

Design – Rubric-guided content analysis and scoring of LibChat transcripts. 

Setting – Two large academic libraries at two public universities in the United States. 

Subjects – 710 virtual chat transcripts of patron and library worker interactions. 

Methods – The researchers downloaded, blinded, and cleaned the data of LibChat transcripts that included patron ratings spanning a one-year period. A randomized sample of 360 transcripts from each institution were selected for analysis. Using an adapted rubric based on the RUSA Guidelines for Behavioral Performance of Reference and Information Service Providers, transcripts were divided evenly between two researchers for scoring. Transcripts were scored on a scale of 1 to 3 (as Beginning, Developing, or Accomplished) in the areas of Listening, Interest, Searching, and Follow Up for a maximum of 12 points. The researchers’ scores were compared to the patron ratings using descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation tests. Transcripts were also evaluated qualitatively to identify themes in patron ratings. 

Main Results – The study found that patrons and librarians were generally satisfied with chat interactions, with patrons giving an average rating of 3.8 (out of 4) and librarians scoring transcripts an average of 9.5 (out of 12). Overall, patrons were more likely to consider a chat interaction Accomplished (86.3%) when compared to librarians (56.2%), whereas librarians were more likely to consider a chat interaction Beginning (8.7%) than patrons (1.5%). The few cases (n=8) where the patron gave a low rating and the librarian gave a high score were instances in which the librarian met the behavioural expectations of good chat interactions, but the patron was left dissatisfied due to circumstances outside of the librarian’s control. Of the four areas evaluated, the researchers identified Listening and Follow Up as the areas that showed the most room for improvement. Wait time, chat duration, and message count all lacked a statistically significant correlation to patron ratings. However, for librarians, scores were more likely to be slightly higher when the wait time was shorter, the chat duration was longer, and more messages were exchanged, though the correlation was low. Common priorities between the two groups included responsiveness and sufficiently addressing the patron’s inquiry. In general, librarians placed more emphasis on professionalism in chat interactions guided by professional standards. In contrast, patron ratings indicated little concern about the language or tone used, so long as their inquiry was answered to their satisfaction. 

Conclusion – The study revealed discrepancies in librarian and patron perceptions of successful virtual chat interactions, which suggest that further research is needed to explore how library professionals can better serve their patrons’ needs as virtual chat services continue to evolve.