Notes on:
Evans, G. Edward and Zarnosky, Margaret R. Developing library and information center collections. 4th ed.,
Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 2000.  Chap. 15: Evaluation
 

MOTIVES
for collection evaluation

IMPROVE COLLECTION
 = Improve service
Offer readers collection equal
to that of best libraries in area / region

IDENTIFY GAPS
and weak areas (and fill them)
 

INFORMAL EVALUATION
Constant activity of professional librarian
Always concerned to improve
quality, relevance, currency of collection
All types of library; continually
Use library
Examine collection critically
Talk to readers
Listen to readers
 

CONTINUOUS INHOUSE MONITORING

How can libraries easily identify specific titles needed for the collection?

Continually monitor:
Suggestion forms
ILL
Inhouse searches (items patrons cannot locate)
 

FORMAL EVALUATION
 

SIMPLE NUMERIC STANDARDS

("Headcounting")

PUBLIC LIBRARY: KANSAS:

CATEGORIES OF LIBRARIES                     POPULATION
GATEWAY LIBRARIES                                  FEWER THAN 500
LINKING LIBRARIES                                       500-1000
SERVICE CENTERS                                     1000-2500
LEVEL I MAJOR SERVICE CENTERS       2500-10,000
LEVEL II MAJOR SERVICE CENTERS      10,000 - 25,000
LEVEL I MAJOR RESOURCE CENTERS  25,000 - 100,000
LEVEL II MAJOR RESOURCE CENTERS  OVER 100,000
 

MONOGRAPHS:
LIBRARY                                    OPTIMUM                      MINIMUM
TYPE                                             GOAL                       STANDARD
GATEWAY                           20 VOLS / CAPITA        5,000 VOLS
LINKING                               15 VOLS / CAPITA        10,000 VOLS
SERVICE CENTER           10 VOLS / CAPITA        15,000 VOLS
MAJOR SERV. CENT. I     7 VOLS / CAPITA          25,000 VOLS
MAJOR SERV. CENT. II    5 VOLS / CAPITA          70,000 VOLS
MAJOR RES. CENT. I       4 VOLS / CAPITA         125,000 VOLS
MAJOR RES. CENT. II      3 VOLS / CAPITA          300,000 VOLS

PERIODICAL SUBSCRIPTIONS:
LIBRARY                    OPTIMUM      MINIMUM          BACK FILES
TYPE                              GOAL       STANDARD            KEPT
GATEWAY                     20                  12                       1-2 yrs
LINKING                          30                  20                       1-2 yrs
SERVICE CENTER      75                   40                      3-5 yrs
MAJ. SERV. CENT. I    150                 75                      5-10 yrs
MAJ. SERV. CENT. II    275               150                     5-10 yrs
MAJ. RES. CENT. I       450               275                    10-15 yrs
MAJ. RES. CENT. II       **                 1000                   15-25 yrs

** 100 SUBSCRIPTIONS PER 10,000 PERSONS

http://www.ink.org/public/link/fulltext/standard.txt
 

SCHOOLS (TEXAS): RECOMMENDATIONS:
BOOKS, SOFTWARE, ELECTRONIC RESOURCES:
AT LEAST 12,000 ITEMS
ENROLLMENTS OVER 600: MINIMUM OF 20 ITEMS PER PUPIL
PERIODICALS:
AT LEAST 45 SUBSCRIPTIONS: ELEMENTARY CAMPUSES
50-125 SUBSCRIPTIONS AT MIDDLE SCHOOL CAMPUSES
75-150 SUBSCRIPTIONS AT HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUSES
ACCESS TO A FULL TEXT PERIODICAL DATABASE; AND
ONE LOCAL AND AT LEAST ONE STATE OR NATIONAL NEWS SOURCE
ACCESS TO A FULL TEXT NEWS DATABASE

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/schoollibs/standards.html

Links to other standards sites:
http://PutnamValleySchools.org/StSu/Library.html
 

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
ORIGINALLY CLAPP & JORDAN, 1965
LATEST UPDATE:
ACRL STANDARDS, 1995:
MINIMUM BASIC COLLECTION: (85,000 VOLS.) PLUS:
TITLES / VOLUMES PER
FTE FACULTY MEMBER (100)
FTE STUDENT (15)
UNDERGRADUATE MAJORS (350)
MASTER'S ETC. COURSES (3,000 - 6,000)
DOCTORAL PROGRAM (25,000)
(NUMERICAL STANDARDS RECENTLY REPLACED
BY PEER COMPARISONS IN ACADEMIC CONTEXT)
 

Simple numeric standards:
Widely applied to public / school libraries
(formerly to academic libraries)

Advantages:
Easy to apply
Clear results

Disadvantages:
does not consider quality of collection
Crude measure, ignoring requirements of specific libraries

Does anyone have experience with these procedures?
 
 

PEER GROUP COMPARISONS

Association of College and Research Libraries
Standards for College Libraries 2000 Edition

http://www.ala.org/acrl/guides/college.html

Identify libraries considered similar
Compare by:

INPUTS
raw materials of a library program-
the money, space, collection, equipment, and staff

OUTPUTS
quantify the work done,
number of books circulated,
number of reference questions answered.

OUTCOMES
Ways in which library users are changed
by contact with the library's resources and programs.

Sample budget including peer group comparisons:
North Dakota State University
http://www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/Senate/senate.html
(Data from IPEDS:
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System)
 

EVALUATION BY CHECKLIST

Check local holdings against external list:
Standard lists for core collections
Specialised subject bibliographies
Lists from other institutions
Calculate: percentage of core books in library
in comparison to core / recommended lists

ADVANTAGES
INDICATES QUALITY
as well as quantity
IDENTIFIES GAPS
in collection

DISADVANTAGES:
COLLECTION ORIENTED system, not user-oriented
May use for comparison: LISTS which are OUTDATED
/ arbitrary / subjective / biased
Library under evaluation may have unique characteristics / needs
Library may hold alternative titles, as good as those listed
LABOR-INTENSIVE
especially for large collections
Quickly becomes outdated
May promote conformity

SAMPLE BIBLIOGRAPHIES:
REFERENCE DEPARTMENT Z1035:
location of many items suitable for use as checklists

Classic example:
SMALL (COLLEGE) LIBRARIES
Association of College and Research Libraries.
Books for college libraries : a core collection of 50,000 titles.
3rd ed. Chicago, American Library Association, 1988. 6 v.
(no later update)
Note also Wilson standard catalogs: e.g.:
Public Library Catalog:
http://www.hwwilson.com/print/publibcat.htm
Senior High School Library Catalog:
http://www.hwwilson.com/print/srhscat.htm
(Soon to be availabe in electronic form)
 

AUTOMATED EVALUATION BY CHECKLIST

Automated comparison of collection
with that of similar libraries
(Tapes or CD-ROMs from OCLC/AMIGOS)
Peer Group Holdings as an Evaluation Tool
for Public Library Adult Fiction:
http://www.oclc.org/oclc/research/publications/review96/sweet.htm

Does anyone have experience with these procedures?
 
 

TRANSACTION-BASED METHODS:
Criteria that can be calculated easily from automated catalog:

CIRCULATION:
(circulation activity analysis)
(covers only circulating items)
High circulation generally considered
Indicator of quality collection
(but other factors may be relevant:
lack of alternatives;
curriculum demands in college libraries)

AGE of collection:
(currency analysis)
Useful indicator in school libraries:
up-to-date books vital
Renew entire collection
every few years

GROWTH:
by number of volumes

Circulation, age and growth of
various segments of collection can be compared

Advantage:
Easy to calculate

Disadvantage:
Indicators often rough
Can be difficult to interpret statistics

Does anyone have experience with these procedures?
 

PROFILING:

Compare various segments of collection

0 - 5 NUMERIC SCALE

0     OUT OF SCOPE
1     MINIMAL COVERAGE
2     BASIC INFORMATIONAL / INTRODUCTORY LEVEL
3     TEACHING SUPPORT LEVEL
3.1     UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING LEVEL
3.2     MASTERS TEACHING LEVEL
4     RESEARCH LEVEL
5     COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE

additional codes for language coverage
 

Most complex system:
RLG: CONSPECTUS
aimed more at collection maintenance
coordination for cooperation than evaluation
no longer maintained by RLG:

http://ftp.auckland.ac.nz/lbr/acquis/coldev.htm#contentsco

http://www.is.bham.ac.uk/cm/colldevt/cd_defin.htm
 
 

USER SATISFACTION
(Inhouse studies)

TRANSACTION STUDY

UNSUCCESSFUL SEARCH ANALYSIS

accompany user / ask user to describe
recent unsuccessful process of seeking materials
Then identify problem:

READER'S DATA CORRECT, LIBRARY DOES NOT OWN
READER'S DATA CORRECT; ITEM ON LOAN / RESERVED ELSEWHERE
----DATA RELEVANT FOR COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT

READER'S DATA CORRECT, ITEM NOT YET IN CATALOG
READER'S DATA CORRECT, ITEM MISSHELVED, BINDING
----IMPROVE GENERAL LIBRARY SERVICES

READER'S DATA INCORRECT; LIBRARY OWNS
READER'S DATA CORRECT, SEARCHES INCORRECTLY
----TRAIN READERS

Advantages:
Tailored to needs of specific library
Can zero in on specific problem / collection:
periodicals / CD-ROMs

Disadvantages:
Requires reader cooperation
Evaluates existing demand

Does anyone have experience with these procedures?
 

EVALUATION BY TYPE OF LIBRARY:

ACADEMIC / RESEARCH most likely to conduct:
COMPLEX FORMAL EVALUATION

PUBLIC, SCHOOL libraries:
SIMPLER evaluations:
Staff not trained in formal evaluation techniques
Little time
CONSTANT RENEWAL principal means to collection improvement

CORPORATE / INDUSTRIAL library:
Little TIME for formal evaluation
Change direction in response to change of mission