Use and Non-Use of Choice Reviewed Titles A

Use and Non-Use of Choice. Reviewed Titles: A Comparison between Undergraduate and Research Libraries Library Assessment Conference Seattle August 4, 2008 Margaret M. Jobe, University of Colorado at Boulder margaret. jobe@colorado. edu Michael Levine-Clark, University of Denver Michael. levine-clark@du. edu

Collection Assessment Methods Based on: Peggy Johnson. Fundamentals of Collection Development and Management. Chicago: ALA, 2004. Collection-Based Quantitative Qualitative Use- or User-Based Collection size/growth Materials budget size/growth Collection size standards and formulas Comparisons with peer Interlibrary loan statistics Circulation statistics In-house statistics Document delivery statistics Shelf availability statistics institutions: title counts, Listuniquely held titles, etc. checking Verification studies Citation analysis Direct collection checking Collection mapping (assigning conspectus levels) Brief tests of collection strength User opinion surveys User observation Focus groups

Why Choice? • Important reviewing tool • Selection tool for many libraries • Books with characteristics that match undergraduate research patterns

Reviews as Predictors of Circulation • John P. Schmitt and Stuart Saunders, “An Assessment of Choice as a Tool for Selection, ” College & Research Libraries 44, no. 5 (1983): 375 -80. – Choice-reviewed titles circulated at the same rate as the collection as a whole – Titles highly recommended for undergraduate audiences had higher circulation rates than those recommended for more specialized audiences – Small correlation between positive reviews and circulation of titles in the social sciences, but no correlation for titles in the humanities

Reviews as Predictors of Circulation 2 • E. Stewart Saunders, “The Effect of Quality on Circulation in an Aging Collection, ” Collection Management 20, no. 3 -4 (1996): 149156. – No link between initial reviews and use of titles as they aged. • Karen Carter Williams and Rickey Best, “E-book Usage and the Choice Outstanding Academic Book List: Is There a Correlation? , ” Journal of Academic Librarianship 32 (September 2006): 474 -478. – No link between positive review and higher circulation of electronic books.

The Comparison Sets • Eight Colorado Alliance Libraries – Four Doctoral Extensive – Two Doctoral Intensive – One Masters – One Liberal Arts (in both sets) • Seven Liberal Arts Schools – Six entirely undergraduate – One with a small number of graduate students

The Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries • Auraria Library • • • University of Colorado, Boulder – CU Denver – Metro State College • University of Colorado, – Comm. College of Denver Colorado Springs Colorado College • University of Denver Colorado School of Mines • University of Northern Colorado State University Colorado Denver Public Library • University of Wyoming Regis University

The Undergraduate Libraries • • Bates College Bowdoin College Bryn Mawr College Colby College Colorado College Haverford College Swarthmore College

Undergraduate Library Use • Library use is generally curricular • Library valued as place – Leo Clougherty, John W. Forys, and Toby A. Lyles, "The University of Iowa Libraries' Undergraduate User Needs Assessment, " College & Research Libraries 59, no. 6 (November, 1998): 572 -584. – Dawn E. Talbot, Gerald Ray Lowell, and Kerry Martin, "From the Users' Perspective--the UCSD Libraries User Survey Project, " The Journal of Academic Librarianship 24, no. 5 (September, 1998): 357 -364. – Audrey F. Bancroft , Vicki F. Croft, and Robert Speth, "A Forward. Looking Library Use Survey: WSU Libraries in the 21 st Century, " The Journal of Academic Librarianship 24, no. 3 (May, 1998): 216 -224.

Book Selection Criteria of Undergraduates • Select books that facilitate quick extraction of a piece of information: detailed tables of contents, subheadings in text, good overall organization, and detailed index. – Thomas Stieve, and David Schoen, “Undergraduate Students’ Book Selection: A Study of Factors in the Decision-Making Process, ” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32 ( November, 2006): 599 -608.

Choice Selection Criteria • Editors at Choice prescreen for “material [that is] is presented in a comprehensive, well-organized, and understandable manner. The work contains appropriate supporting apparatus, such as an index, illustrations, bibliography, notes, and appendixes. ” – "Criteria for Selection. " American Library Association. 2006. http: //www. ala. org/ala/acrlpubs/choice/selectionp olicy/criteriaselection. htm

Library Use at Liberal Arts Schools • • Higher levels of library use More likely to check out library materials More likely to browse the stacks Greater care in judging the quality of information – Ethelene Whitmire, "The Relationship between Undergraduates' Background Characteristics and College Experiences and Their Academic Library Use, " College & Research Libraries 62, no. 6 (November, 2001): 528 -540. – George D. Kuh and Robert M. Gonyea, "The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student Engagement in Learning, ” College & Research Libraries 64, no. 4 (July, 2003): 256 -282. – Stanley H. Benson, Recorded Library use Statistics for Four-Year Liberal Arts Institutions, 1973/74. 1975, ERIC ED 119658.

Library Use at Liberal Arts Schools 2 “The character of experiences with academic libraries at small, academically challenging baccalaureate liberal arts colleges sets them apart from other types of institutions. ” – George D. Kuh and Robert M. Gonyea, "The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student Engagement in Learning, ” College & Research Libraries 64, no. 4 (July, 2003): 266 -267.

The Data: Differences with Earlier Data • • Multiple years of data 100% slice rather than sample data Data from multiple institutions Result: more accurate and nuanced results.

Institutional Data - Alliance Institution Carnegie Class Enrollment Volumes (2005) Annual Volumes Circulation per (2005) Student Annual Circ per Student Auraria Doc Int. 33, 000 647, 937 276, 470 20 8 CO Coll Lib Arts 1, 998 501, 234 67, 475 251 34 CSU Doc Ext. 25, 500 1, 896, 848 233, 810 74 9 Regis Masters 16, 800 267, 791 55, 229 16 3 CU-B Doc Ext. 32, 362 3, 554, 286 691, 499 110 21 DU Doc Ext. 7, 390 1, 325, 641 310, 219 179 42 UNC Doc Int. 10, 484 1, 035, 975 218, 953 99 21 Wyoming Doc Ext. 10, 437 1, 366, 006 128, 665 131 12 Volumes/student = 77 Circulations/student = 14

Institutional Data - Undergraduate Institution Carnegie Enrollment Volumes Class (2005) Annual Volumes Circulation per (2005) Student Annual Circ per Student Bates Lib Arts 1, 746 591, 630 88, 097 339 50 Bowdoin Lib Arts 1, 642 995, 507 57, 937 606 35 Bryn Mawr Doc Int. 1, 478 891, 443 111, 851 603 76 Colby Lib Arts 1, 871 500, 848 94, 727 268 51 CO Coll Lib Arts 1, 998 501, 234 67, 475 251 34 Haverford Lib Arts 1, 126 573, 762 46, 743 510 42 Swarthmore Lib Arts 1, 428 762, 747 90, 690 534 64 Volumes/Student = 427 Circulations/Student = 49

Spectra Dimension • Collection analysis tool http: //sirius. librarydynamics. net/dimension/ • Holdings from fourteen libraries – Bib and item records, including circ data – 1999 -2005 or 2006 – Ability to compare usage across different types of libraries – Data formatted to allow analysis of usage on an annual basis • Choice data (1998 -2005) • Choice OAT (2002 -2005)

Collections Compared • • • Colorado Alliance (1999 -2006) Undergraduate (1999 -2005) Choice Alliance (1999 -2005) Choice Undergraduate (1999 -2005) Choice OAT Alliance (2002 -2005) Choice OAT Undergraduate (2002 -2005)

Number of Titles Alliance Undergraduate Overall 421, 882 189, 157 Choice 40, 528 (93. 77%) 34, 020 (78. 71%) Choice OAT 2, 969 (97. 95%) 2, 845 (93. 86%)

Average Number of Copies Per Title Alliance Undergraduate Overall 2. 28 2. 08 Choice 4. 01 3. 12 Choice OAT 4. 88 3. 82

Annualized Use Per Title Alliance Undergraduate Overall 0. 46 0. 16 Choice 0. 48 0. 16 Choice OAT 0. 53 0. 17

Annualized Use by Discipline Humanities Overall Choice OAT Alliance 0. 49 0. 40 0. 45 Undergraduate 0. 19 0. 12 Alliance 0. 40 0. 52 0. 56 Undergraduate 0. 13 0. 18 0. 20 Alliance 0. 43 0. 47 0. 49 Undergraduate 0. 15 0. 17 Alliance 0. 49 0. 50 0. 56 Undergraduate 0. 17 0. 20 Social Sciences History Sciences

Percent of Titles with Zero Usage Alliance Undergraduate Overall 39. 30% 68. 64% Choice 15. 42% 50. 69% Choice OAT 13. 20% 44. 89%

Conclusions • Undergraduate books used at a lower rate overall, but at a much higher rate per student. All Choice OAT Undergraduate 0. 16 0. 17 Alliance 0. 46 0. 48 0. 53 Alliance Adjusted* 0. 08 0. 09 0. 10 * Divided by a factor of 5. 5. On average the liberal arts colleges have 427 volumes per student. The Alliance Libraries have an average of 77 volumes per student. 427 ∕ 77 = 5. 5

Conclusions 2 • Choice-reviewed books not used at a higher rate than the rest of the collection for either group • Choice OAT used more, but significant only for Alliance

Conclusions 3 • In both sets of libraries, books reviewed in Choice are much more likely ever to be used – A worthwhile investment

Conclusions 4 • Choice books meet many criteria that undergraduates find important BUT • Undergraduates do not use them more than the collection as a whole.

Further Reading • Levine-Clark, Michael and Margaret M. Jobe, “Do Reviews Matter? An Analysis of Usage and Holdings of Choice-Reviewed Titles within a Consortium, ” Journal of Academic Librarianship 33, no. 6 (2007): 639 -646. • Jobe, Margaret M. and Michael Levine-Clark, “Use and Non-Use of Choice-Reviewed Titles in Undergraduate Libraries, ” Journal of Academic Librarianship 34, no. 4 (2008): 295 -304.

Questions? Margaret M. Jobe, University of Colorado at Boulder margaret. jobe@colorado. edu Michael Levine-Clark, University of Denver Michael. levine-clark@du. edu