Loading…
This event has ended. View the official site or create your own event → Check it out
This event has ended. Create your own
View analytic
Monday, May 16 • 10:30am - 12:00pm
Evidence-based Collection Development in the New Millennium: Doing Better What We Have Always Done Well

Sign up or log in to save this to your schedule and see who's attending!

Gathering the Evidence for E-book Collection Development: A Survey of Academic and Clinical Library Users
10:35 AM - 10:55 AM
Objectives: We wanted to know which of our academic and clinical library patron groups were using e-books, how they were using them, and what factors were associated with e-book use. This information can aid in making cost-effective yet user-friendly collection development decisions, improve e-book marketing, target user education initiatives, and assess the utility of e-book discovery and access tools.
Methods: Collection development and reference librarians familiar with hospital and academic library users collaborated to produce a probability sample survey for online administration. Questions addressed awareness and use of physical and virtual library collections; e-book or print preferences by user role, task, institutional affiliation, distance from the library, and type of book; preferences for e-book features and access modes; and respondent demographics. After internal review board approval, it was tested by librarians and graduate students, revised, and finalized. The list of library remote access users’ email addresses was divided by hospital or academic affiliation, and a random sample was drawn from each set. Email invitations to participate in the survey were sent to 5,292 library users. In total, 871 completed and 108 partially completed surveys were received, with all user groups represented. Descriptive and chi-square analysis was done using SPSS 17.
Results: Library e-books were used by 55.4% of respondents. Use varied by role and task: 21.3% of faculty reported assigning class readings from e-books, while 86% of interns, residents, and fellows reported using e-books to support clinical care. Respondents preferred print for textbooks and manuals; e-books for research protocols, pharmaceutical, and reference books; but indicated flexibility about format choice. They rated printing and saving e-book content as the most important functional e-book features and preferred the federated search engine to the library catalog for e-book access.
Conclusions: The heaviest users of both electronic and print books are readers in information-intensive roles, whether clinical or academic. Respondent’s willingness to use alternate formats suggests libraries may selectively reduce title duplication between print and e-books and still support library user information needs. Targeted marketing, provision of user-friendly e-book search tools, and user education may increase use of e-book collections.
Authors: Barbara L. Folb, Public Health Informationist; Charles B. Wessel, Head, Hospital Services; Leslie J. Czechowski, Assistant Director, Collections and Technical Services; Health Sciences Library System; University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 
 
An Evidence-based, Data-driven Approach to Building Useful E-book Collections
10:55 AM - 11:15 AM
Objective: This paper describes the evolving presence of e-books in the collection, discusses different licensing models, and highlights challenges inherent in evaluating purchasing decisions with an evidence-based approach. Emerging trends in the publication and selection of e-books will be discussed. Methods for further, evidence-based evaluation of purchasing decisions will be proposed, including honing metrics and involving patron feedback.
Methods: The library has begun to shift more of its monograph collection budget toward e-books due to accessibility advantages they offer and decreased use of the print collection. Thoughtfully selecting titles for developing a core collection of e-books has created new challenges. Circulation data have traditionally been used to evaluate purchasing decisions of print monographs. This method does not translate well to e-books due to variations in vendor usage reports and the increased magnitude of usage compared to print . A more effective model for evaluating e-book purchasing decisions has been developed, based on comparing e-book usage to that of other e-books; looking at different business models; cost per use, subject, and overlap analysis; and other methods of evaluation. Models, such as those used for evaluating e-journals, are used and adapted for e-book analysis.
Results and Conclusions: Due to appropriate methods of evaluating purchasing decisions of e-books, the library spends more effectively and more responsively. The library is more accountable to stakeholders and can better distribute a limited monographs budget so that e-book titles purchased are likely to be used.
Authors: Karen S. Grigg, AHIP, Associate Director, Collection Services; Emma Cryer, Electronic Resources and Serials Manager, Journal Services; Richard A. Peterson, AHIP, Deputy Director; Medical Center Library and Archives; Adrianne K. Leonardelli, Information & Education Services Librarian; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 
 
Rethinking Collection Development Strategies: Exploring Author Publications as Evidence for Journal Subscription Decisions
11:15 AM - 11:35 AM
Objectives: To explore costs of institutional access to University of Utah research output by examining the correspondence between journals in which university-affiliated authors publish and journals to which the university subscribes, as well as the associated costs of journal subscriptions and interlibrary loans, and to describe how this analysis can be used to inform evidence-based collection development.
Methods: An analysis of health sciences journals in which university-affiliated authors published in 2009 was conducted. Journals were identified using the Scopus and Web of Science databases, and a random sample of journals was selected for further analysis. The university libraries’ catalog and publisher websites were reviewed to determine institutional access for each journal selected. Costs for subscribed journals were calculated using library invoices and publisher information. Cost per use was estimated using journal download statistics provided by publishers. For journals to which the library did not subscribe, interlibrary loan (ILL) costs were calculated based on number of patron requests. Data related to the access and cost of university-produced publications were evaluated to guide future collection development decisions.
Results: Affiliation searches identified 1,039 journals that met the study criteria; 281 of these were analyzed. Current access to approximately 70% of these journals was available to university patrons. Subscription costs varied widely, as did usage, resulting in disparate estimates of cost per use. Approximately 75% of the journals to which the university did not subscribe were requested at least once through ILL; approximately 25% of journals to which the university did subscribe were requested. Numbers of requests per journal, and thus estimated ILL costs, again varied widely.
Conclusions: Analysis of publication access, subscription and ILL costs, and usage is an inexact science; multiple variables limit the precision of such calculations. However, these investigations can provide valuable information with which to evaluate the success of prior collection development decisions and guide future decision making. Decisions are best based not solely on the cost of resources, but also on the value offered.
Authors: Kathleen Amos, AHIP, Sewell Learning Partnership Librarian Fellow, Public Health Foundation, Washington, DC; Alice Weber, AHIP, Collection Development Librarian, Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library; Allyson Mower, Scholarly Communications and Copyright Librarian; Mary Ann James, Electronic Resources Coordinator, J. Willard Marriott Library; Mary E. Youngkin, Public Services Librarian, Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library; Joanne Yaffe, Associate Professor, College of Social Work; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 
 
Specialty Board Reading Lists as Selection Guides
11:35 AM - 11:55 AM
Objective: Most of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Recognized Specialty Veterinary Organizations (RSVO) provide recommended reading lists to candidates for qualification examination preparation. We developed a methodology for gathering, verifying, and serving these lists to libraries serving practicing and teaching veterinarians. Ongoing collection evaluation using these reading lists ensures that libraries serving these patrons have materials that are essential to their continuing education.
Methods: There are twenty separate AVMA RSVOs with thirty-nine distinct specialties providing a broad swath of subject coverage of veterinary medicine as a discipline, nineteen of which provide recommended reading lists. Obtaining current reading lists and unraveling citation authority problems, we maintain a Delicious site pointing to publicly available web-mounted lists and WorldCat.org shared lists (to assist examination candidates to locate locally available items) and are developing a web presence template for all boards for all MLA Veterinary Medical Libraries Section members (the prototype is currently at North Carolina State University). Behind the scenes, this is driven by obsessively maintained Excel spreadsheets of citation data. Future plans …


Monday May 16, 2011 10:30am - 12:00pm
101H - Minneapolis Convention Center

Attendees (91)




Privacy Policy Disclaimer and Notice of Copyright About MLANET