lecture presented by Janice Penaflor for PAARL's 1st Marina G. Dayrit Lecture Series 2016 held at Asian Institute of Maritime Studies, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City on February 19, 2016

1. sSpotlight on USERS
An Introduction to Client-centered
Collection Assessment
1st Marina G. Dayrit Lecture Series 2016
Philippine Association of Academic/Research Librarians, Inc. (PAARL) February 19, 2016, 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm
Asian Institute of Maritime Studies, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City.
Presented by:
JANICE PENAFLOR

2. The Value of Your Collection

3. Collection Assessment
“The systematic evaluation of the quality of a
library collection to determine the extent to which it
meets the library's service goals and objectives and
the information needs of its clientele.” -- ODLIS

4. Determines:
• If the collection is meeting its objectives
• How well it is serving its users
• In which ways or areas it is deficient, and
what remains to done to develop the
collection
• If selectors are performing their
responsibilities effectively
• How to allocate collections/access funds
Collection Assessment

5. What is your Library’s
Mission Statement?

6. Why conduct assessment?
Policy of Legal
Requirement
Planning
Need for
information

7. Your goal will determine the appropriate
assessment technique.
Every collection assessment
must have a goal!

8. Types Collection Assessment
Collection- Centered
• compare the collection with
some established standards
Client-Centered
• measure how the collection is
used by library users

9. Who are your users?
User-centered approaches compare the
collection against user needs, interests,
and requests.

10. Client-centered Assessment
• evaluates how the collection is used by
library patrons
• “…look at who is using the materials,
how often, and what their expectations
are.” (Peggy Johnson, 2009)

11. Client-centered Assessment
Looks at:
Who uses
the
collection
Frequency
of use
Users’
expecta-
tions
User’s
needs
User’s
percep-
tions

12. Client-centered Assessment
Approaches
Circulation
Studies
Citation
Analysis

13. Client-centered Assessment
Approaches
User Surveys
Shelf Availability
Studies

14. Client-centered Assessment
Approaches
Interlibrary Loan
/Document Delivery
Studies
Focus Groups

15. Circulation Studies
• assume that the adequacy of the
book collection is directly related to
its use
• determine actual use in relation to a
particular trend -
– publication year
– user group
– subject area

16. Circulation Studies
Pros
Data are objective
Data may be helpful for
deselection/weeding decisions
Data are easy to obtain and
compile

17. Circulation Studies
Cons
Data do not reflect use in the library of either
circulating or non-circulating materials.
Do not reflect actual use of the collection
Do not reflect “turn-away” statistics
Value of materials is unknown

18. Procedure
Identify
the scope
of the
study
Collect
data
Tabulate
and
analyze
data
Report
results

19. Basic data You may need:
• Class Letter
• Subject Category
• Usage per Month
• Total Usage

20. Statistical Measures
• Mean, Media, Mode
– Average
– Percentage
– Middle Frequency

21. Sample Table
Class
Letter
Subject Category Total
Usage
User Per
Category
Average
Annual Usage
Q300-
399
Computer
Science
1525
43.20 6.35
QA Mathematics 216 6.12 0.90
QB Astronomy 148 4.19 0.62
QC Physics 525 14.87 2.19
QD Chemistry 684 19.38 2.85
QE Earth Science 432 12.24 1.80

22. Sample 1.
Source: Kohn, Karen C. ( January 2013). Usage-Based Collection Evaluation with a Curricular Focus.
College & Research Libraries, 74(1). Retrieved from http://crl.acrl.org/content/74/1/85.full.pdf+html

23. Dinkins, D. (2003). Circulation as assessment: Collection development policies evaluated in terms of circulation at a
small academic library. College & Research Libraries, 64, 46–53 Retrieved from :
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.128.2249&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Sample 2.

24. Source: Lisa M. Rose-Wiles (2013) Are Print Books Dead? An Investigation of Book Circulation at a Mid-Sized
Academic Library, Technical Services Quarterly, 30:2, 129-152, DOI:10.1080/07317131.2013.759496
Sample 3.

25. Source: Lisa M. Rose-Wiles (2013) Are Print Books Dead? An Investigation of Book Circulation at a
Mid-Sized Academic Library, Technical Services Quarterly, 30:2, 129-152,
DOI:10.1080/07317131.2013.759496

26. A B C D E F H
LC
Class
Subject
No. of
Items
No. of Items
with
Circulation
Data
No. of
Circula-
tions
% Circu-
lated
Circulation
Ratio of
Used Items
L
Education
(General)
258 50 115 19.38 2.30
LA
History of
education
1744 763 4327 43.75 5.67
LB
Theory and
practice of
education
11029 6710 73514 60.84 10.96
LC
Special aspects of
education 3008 1688 17676 56.12 10.47
LD
Individual
institutions (United
States)
98 23 344 23.47 14.96
TOTAL/AVE
Sample 4.

27. Citation Analyses
A variation of the
checklist method
Primarily used for
research-level materials
Critical review of
bibliographic citations in
order to determine levels
of usage
Examines the “fit” of the
collection against
patron’s needs

28. Pros
Lists are easy to obtain
Easier to conduct
Data being studied are concrete
Identify works that are not in the collection
Presents referencing behavior of users
Citation Analyses

29. Cons
Subjective
Limited to the subject of the paper
Tedious and time consuming
Limited by the number of students/faculty who writes
research
Citation Analyses

30. Procedures
Set the scope of the
collection for the
study
Gather the citations
Checklist the list of
citations against the
library’s collection
Tabulate and analyze
results
Present findings

31. Data You May Need
Author
Title
Publication year
Format
Library holdings
LC call number
Discipline
*includes but not limited to

32. Sample Talbe
Subject Books
(%)
Serials
(%)
News-
paper (%)
Theses &
Diss (%)
Other
Art &
Humanities 75 20 1 2 1
Education
37 45 1 3 12
Sciences
14 79 0 5 2
Social
Sciences 36 60 1 2 1

33. Source: Graziano, V. LGBTQ Collection Assessment: A Citation Analysis and Case Study at Concordia University Libraries
[PDF document]. Retrieved from: http://library.concordia.ca/about/staff/forum/files/Graziano_2015.pdf

34. Source: Graziano, V. LGBTQ Collection Assessment: A Citation Analysis and Case Study at Concordia University Libraries
[PDF document]. Retrieved from: http://library.concordia.ca/about/staff/forum/files/Graziano_2015.pdf

35. Source: Labonte, K.B. Citation Analysis: A Method for Collection Development for a Rapidly Developing Field
Retrieved from: http://www.istl.org/05-summer/refereed.html
Table 2: Top 59 Cited Journals (top two-thirds of citations)
Title Citations
Applied Physics Letters 267
Physical Review Letters 261
Physical Review. B 209
Science 161
Nature 122
Journal of Chemical Physics 108
Journal of the American Chemical Society 100
Macromolecules 88

36. Shelf Availability Studies
determine if an item
presumed to be in
the collection is
available to the user
36

37. Shelf Availability Studies
37
Pros
• Respondents are real users of
library materials
• Can be easily repeated
• Identify failures users face when
searching for materials

38. Shelf Availability Studies
38
Cons
• User cooperation is required
• Needs of nonusers are not
identified
• Data collection is time consuming
• Users many not remember titles

39. Procedures
39
Identify the scope of the study
Develop questionnaire
Gather and tabulate data
Analyze, Conclude and
Recommend

40. Source: Rifai, Agus; Ahmad, Muslim Ismail Mr.; and Zulkarnain, Nordelina Mrs, "Measuring Shelf Availability in
University Library: Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Machang, Kelantan State, Malaysia" (2014). Library
Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). Paper 1115. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1115

41. User Surveys
Obtains feedback about the user’s
satisfaction with the collection

42. Evaluates the opinions of the users as
to whether the library meets their
needs.
User Surveys

43. User Surveys
Utilizes written or oral responses
to predetermined questions
43

44. Advantages Disadvantages
• Difficult to design a
comprehensive and clear
questions
• Past experiences will
affect responses
• Samples are not always
random
• Volunteer respondents
may not be representative
of the user population
44
• Can be used for most
types of users
• Information collected may
reflect current interest
• Survey can be develop to
relate directly to the
needs of users and to the
goals and objectives of
the collection
User Surveys

45. Survey Questionnaires are
often the best choice for “an
economical method to reach
a large number of people.”

46. Two Survey Formats
Open Ended
• Allow open ended
questions but not too
many
Structured
• Response type includes
yes/no or true/false;
multiple choice; Likert;
and semantic differential

47. Tips
1. Put responses in progressive order.
2. Avoid using too many categories.
3. Avoid asking users to rank responses
4. Item should be clear and brief
5. Avoid compound questions.
6. Items should not be redundant.

48. Steps in Conducting a Survey
Set objectives
Select and
design data
collection
technique
Develop and
test the
instrument
Select sample
population
Collect data
Analyze the
Results
Interpret
results
48

50. Sample:

51. Sample:

52. Interlibrary Loan Analysis
Analysis of material the library
obtain through its interlibrary
loan (ILL) process.
52

53. Interlibrary Loan Analysis
Advantages Disadvantages
Easy to obtain data
Titles requested can be
used as selection guide
Data my be difficult to
infer
Does not count users
who don’t know ILL
service

54. Sample Result
21
57
52
69
31
12
31
46
9 8
92
115
92
115
82
51
21 22
41
105
15
9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
No.ofRequests
DLSU DDS Statistics AY2013-2014-AY2014-2015
AY2013-2014
AY2014-2015

55. Sample Result
1 1 1 1
2
15
31
1 1
1010
12
29
5
4
6
0
2 2
6
11
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
No.ofRequstsRequests
DLSU ILL Statistics AY2013-14 toAY2014-15
AY2013-2014
AY2014-20215

56. Focus Group Discussion (FGD)
“a group of interacting individuals
having some common interest or
characteristics, brought together by a
moderator, who uses the group and its
interaction as a way to gain information
about a specific or focused issue”
- Marczak & Sewell (n.d.)

57. Focus Group Discussion (FGD)
A method of evaluation that allows
users to express their ideas about
a topic.

58. Focus Group Discussion (FGD)
“…fundamentally a way of
listening to people and learning
from them.”

59. Focus Group Discussion (FGD)
CAN tell you:
• how groups of people think or feel
• why certain opinions are held
• Help improve the planning and
design of new programs
• Provide a means of evaluating
existing programs

60. Focus Group
Discussion (FGD)
• Explores depth and
degrees of opinions
regarding an issue.
• Flexible (can be used for wide
range of topics)
• Researcher can interact
directly with respondents
• Can obtain deeper levels
of meaning, make
important connections,
identify subtle nuances
Pros

61. Focus Group
Discussion (FGD)
• Requires trained
interviewer who is
knowledgeable about
group dynamics
• Less control over group
• Less control on what
information will be
produced
• Confidentiality issues
• Data analysis is more
difficult
Cons

62. Procedure
Identify
scope of
the study.
Formulate
and
validate
survey
form.
Gather
data
(Interview).
Analyze
and report.

63. Number of
Participants
Number of
Questions
Group length
in Minutes
Minutes per
person, per
question
6 8 120 2.5
8 10 90 1.1
10 12 60 0.5
Table from: The Focus Group Guidebook, Vol. 1.

64. Sample questions:
For service(s)/facility(ies) that you are familiar with, how did you learn
about the service(s)/facility(ies)?
When was the last time you availed of this/these?
How was your experience when you availed/made use of
service(s)/facility(ies)?
How do you think can we better improve this/these service(s)/facility(ies)?
What are your reasons for not availing of any of the Libraries’
services/facilities?

65. Assessment Process
Define your collection evaluation goal
Determine what data you need to gather, and
how
Choose an appropriate evaluation
technique
Document and disseminate results

66. Choose a measure that
is simple.

67. NO one-method-fits-all.

68. Know your
audience.

69. Results should be
understandable and
meaningful.

70. DON’T do it ONCE,
and NEVER again.

71. DON’T
AIM FOR
PERFECTION

72. Results should lead to
ACTION.

74. References
Disher, W. 2007. Crash course in collection development . Westport, Conn. : Libraries Unlimited.
Johnson, Peggy. 2004. Fundamentals of Collection Development and Management. American Library Association.
Mardis, M.A. 2016.The Collection Program in Schools: Concepts and Practices. ABC-CLIO.
Network of Alabama Academic Libraries. Collection Development Committee. 2004. Network of Alabama Academic
Libraries collection assessment manual. Montgomery, Alabama : NAAL. Retrieved July 1, 2011 from
http://www.ache.state.al.us/NAAL/Collection%20Assessment%20Manual.pdf
National Library of Australia. Australian Libraries Gateway. 2004. A Guide to the collection assessment process. Retrieved
April 26, 2011 from http://www.nla.gov.au/libraries/help/guide.html
Graziano, V. LGBTQ Collection Assessment: A Citation Analysis and Case Study at Concordia University Libraries [PDF
document]. Retrieved from: http://library.concordia.ca/about/staff/forum/files/Graziano_2015.pdf
Frias, W. Collection Assessment and Analysis : The client centered approach [Word document]. Retrieved from:
https://www.academia.edu/6449359/Collection_Assessment_and_Analysis_the_client_centered_approach
Johnson, P. Assessing collection [PDF Document]. Retrieved from:
http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/assessment/AssessingCollections.pdf