Reference transaction assessment

Author:

McLaughlin Jean E.

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.

Publisher

Emerald

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

1. Tracking student learning outcome engagement at the reference desk to facilitate assessment;Reference Services Review;2022-10-25

2. Does the READ Scale Work for Chat? A Review of the Literature;Evidence Based Library and Information Practice;2021-09-15

3. Does the READ Scale Work for Chat? A Review of the Literature;Evidence Based Library and Information Practice;2021-09-15

4. Exploration of reference models in a public university system;Reference Services Review;2019-02-11

5. Provision of consumer health information in Alberta's Rural Public Libraries;Health Information & Libraries Journal;2019-01-30

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3