Abstract
PurposeThis paper aims to survey the published journal literature on reference transaction assessment. Its purpose is to highlight the need for a multiple perspectives approach due to the complexity of reference transactions. Satisfaction indicators, behavioral aspects, accuracy rates, success measures, and other desired transaction outcomes contribute to the need for a broader assessment picture.Design/methodology/approachThis is a review from the first decade of the twenty‐first century. Selected were papers from 2001 through 2010, filtered from search results from library literature databases. Primary inclusion criteria identified refereed papers, studies of academic library populations, evaluation or assessment of reference transactions, and methods contributing to systematic practices versus unique assessment events.FindingsBy viewing reference transactions as complex interactions, librarians are recognizing that simple counts and narrow views of assessment are not adequate. Missing in the assessment literature is a universally accepted set of standard approaches, study methodologies, and reporting formats for comparison and analysis. Improvements may contribute to efforts that go beyond local studies to more meaningful peer comparisons.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough not an exhaustive representation of all reference services assessment literature, the paper profiles the heart of reference, i.e. the interaction between users and library service providers. This focus fosters a concentration on a core reference activity: addressing library users' information needs.Originality/valueThis review highlights assessment challenges, unresolved problems, and topics addressed from 2001 to 2010. It also provides a look at tools that can enhance assessment programs.
Subject
Library and Information Sciences
Reference43 articles.
1. Aguilar, P., Keating, K. and Swanback, S. (2010), “Click it, no more tick it: online reference statistics”, The Reference Librarian, Vol. 51 No. 4.
2. Arnold, J. and Kaske, N. (2005), “Evaluating the quality of a chat service”, portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 5 No. 2.
3. Association of Research Libraries (2011), “ARL statistics questionnaire, 2009‐10: instructions for completing the questionnaire”, p. 7, available at www.arl.org/bm∼doc/10instruct.pdf (accessed April 8, 2011).
4. Bergman, E.M.L. and Holden, I.I. (2010), “User satisfaction with electronic reference: a systematic review”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 493‐509.
5. Desai, C.M. and Graves, S.J. (2008), “Cyberspace or face‐to‐face”, Reference & User Services Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 242‐54, available at http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e6d7870533014939ff4d4fab469e5969b22e326c23611d3cbb274c15e9c067fe2&fmt=P (accessed March 27, 2011).
Cited by
17 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献