Focus on Assessment - Apr 26, 2010

The Library Assessment and Metrics Council highlights the following articles related to
assessment. We hope they offer you some helpful tools and information. Links to many of these
articles can be found on our RSS feed (see
https://intranet.libraries.psu.edu/home/groups/assesscouncil/rssfeed.html for more information).

“A Brief History of Reference Assessment: No Easy Solutions” Firouzeh F. Logan,
Reference Librarian 50:225-233 (2009). This very readable work covers the history of
reference and reference assessment. The author discusses performance appraisal, accuracy
studies, user satisfaction measures, definitions, and various other approaches to evaluating
reference services (log analysis, focus groups, etc.). The author concludes that there is no one
perfect tool, but that reference service must be examined.

“Statistical Analysis Models: Applications for Libraries” Tim Spindler, Library
Leadership & Management 23(1):12-16 (Winter 2009). The author discusses library
operations in terms of service operations management, a business management methodology.
The article calls for more use of standardized statistics and ratios, such as a library collection
failure rate.

“Developing a Model for Reference Research Statistics: Applying the 'Warner Model' of
Reference Question Classification to Streamline Research Services” Harry Meserve et al.
Reference & User Services Quarterly 48, 3 (2009): 247-258. The Warner Model uses a rating
system of question complexity - four levels - to classify reference questions. Levels 1 and 2 are
directional and how-tos and are the focus of training for part-time staff. Levels 3-4 (strategybased
and consultation) are more complex and essentially would be answered by higher-level
staff or librarians, respectively. Samples of questions at each level are included (p. 252 and 258)
as well as a sample tally sheet. The article describes how this model was used to change staffing
and get a better gauge of question distribution by type (80/20 held true - 80% Level 1-2; 20%
Level 3-4).

“Using the READ Scale for Staffing Strategies: The Georgia College and State University
Experience” B.K. Gerlich and E. Whatley. Library Leadership & Management 23(1): 26-
30 (Winter 2009). This article describes ways to enhance the information in reference statistics,
essentially moving beyond tick marks. The READ scale (Reference Effort Assessment Data
scale) has six levels. The article talks about gathering statistics by day-of-week/ hour and scale
level and using the resulting information to modify staffing schedules as well as influencing
training. PowerPoint slides from a 2008 presentation on the READ scale are available at
http://libraryassessment.org/archive/2008.shtml.

“A Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Collection Inventory Project: A Statistical Analysis of
Inventory Data from a Medium-sized Academic Library” J. Sung et al. Journal of
Academic Librarianship 35(4):314-323 (2009). This article describes an interesting application
of cost/benefit analysis. It presents statistics on the number of items mis-shelved, found, etc. and
compares the cost of doing the inventory to the cost of replacing 'found' items.

“Interlibrary services requests for locally and electronically available items: patterns of
use, users, and canceled requests” J.R. Page and J. Kuehn, portal: Libraries and the
Academy 9(4):475-489 (2009). The concept of looking at the error rate is interesting and might
be a worthwhile project locally.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/v009/9.4.page.html

The Proceeding of the 2008 Library Assessment Conference
(http://libraryassessment.org/bm~doc/proceedingslac-2008.pdf) contains a variety of excellent
papers on assessment. Several are highlighted below:

“From Data to Action: Setting Goals to Respond to Customer Wants and Needs” Raynna
Bowlby and Daniel O’Mahoney, p.393-401. This article provides a good explanation
of SMART goal setting. S.M.A.R.T. is the acronym for the five characteristics of well-designed
goals - Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-bound. There are
nice examples of SMART goals in library setting (see p.396).

“What if We Don’t Provide the Computers?: Assessment for Reduction” Donna Tolson
and Matt Ball, in Proceeding of the 2008 Library Assessment Conference, p.235-244. This
article includes great photos of the redesigned commons rooms.

“Wayfinding Revisited: Improved Techniques for Assessing and Solving Usability
Problems in Physical Spaces” David Larsen and Agnes Tatarka, p.65-73.

“Adding Context to Academic Library Assessment: Using the Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS) for Institutional and Comparative Statistics” John
Cocklin, p.253-258.

“Standardized Survey Tools for Assessment in Archives and Special Collections” Elizabeth
Yakel and Helen Tibbo, p.95-103.

“Using Evidence for Library Space Planning” Michael Crumpton and Kathryn Crowe,
p.51-64.

And for another perspective on assessment….“Medicine Wheel Evaluation Framework”
Atlantic Council for International Cooperation, ca 2008. http://www.aciccaci.
org/pdf/Medicine_Wheel_Evaluation_Framework.pdf.