Search results

1 – 4 of 4
Per page
102050
Citations:
Loading...
Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 9 October 2007

Jennifer Benedetto Beals and Ron Gilmour

The purpose of this paper is to assess the efficacy of the brief test method and OCLC's WorldCat Collection Analysis (WCA) in analyzing strengths and weaknesses of collections in…

2700

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to assess the efficacy of the brief test method and OCLC's WorldCat Collection Analysis (WCA) in analyzing strengths and weaknesses of collections in three academic libraries.

Design/methodology/approach

Monographic collections in zoology were assessed in the study, using both the brief test method and WCA at three institutions.

Findings

The paper finds that both the brief test and WCA provide valuable insight into collection strengths and weaknesses.

Research limitations/implications

This is an analysis of only one subject area and one format. Further studies might focus on other disciplines and might take into account a variety of formats.

Practical implications

The study suggests ways in which collection managers might gain a better knowledge of their collection for such purposes as cooperative collection development and preservation.

Originality/value

Since WCA is a newly available tool, there are few studies using this methodology. This adds to the limited literature on the brief test methodology.

Details

Collection Building, vol. 26 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0160-4953

Keywords

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 3 October 2008

Eleanor Moss

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the overall quality of the Louisville Free Public Library's gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender collection.

3552

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the overall quality of the Louisville Free Public Library's gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender collection.

Design/methodology/approach

The study implements an inductive check‐list method. Where other check‐lists compare a list to the collection, ignoring the number of items which do not appear on the list, an inductive method takes a sample of the entire collection, and compares it with several evaluative lists, demonstrating what percentage of the collection is not considered “desirable” by common evaluative lists.

Findings

The results found that 31.9 percent of the LFPL's GLBT collection can be found in the evaluative lists used. Previous inductive evaluations suggest that this number indicates a quality core GLBT collection.

Research limitations/implications

A sample collection was chosen using GLBT‐related subject headings; however, evidence shows that a portion of the actual GLBT collection (perhaps as much as 37.5 percent) lack appropriate subject access control. This results in a potentially flawed sample.

Practical implications

This study provides public librarians with a standard by which they can evaluate their GLBT collections and their library's attempt to meet the needs of a frequently underrepresented minority.

Originality/value

Very few inductive evaluations have been published, and almost none has been published studying GLBT collections. The paper attempts to fill that gap, and provide a deeper standard by which GLBT collections can be evaluated.

Details

Collection Building, vol. 27 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0160-4953

Keywords

Available. Content available
Article
Publication date: 3 October 2008

361

Abstract

Details

Collection Building, vol. 27 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0160-4953

Available. Content available
Article
Publication date: 4 July 2008

Kay Ann Cassell

308

Abstract

Details

Collection Building, vol. 27 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0160-4953

1 – 4 of 4
Per page
102050