Library assessment on a budget

Abstract

Purpose Colleges and universities conduct regular surveys that provide space for local questions, including library‐related items. Unfortunately these surveys often use incomparable metrics and scales. This study seeks to examine techniques to take advantage of such surveys to supply practical results. Design/methodology/approach Effect size meta‐analysis is a statistical method used to combine such disparate results. This method and other statistical tools were used to extract significant findings from the survey results, looking at such library constructs as physical access, analysis (the ability to determine information quality and relevance), collection quality and quantity, retrieval, hours and staff. Findings The paper describes the meta‐analysis of three separate surveys which contained library‐related data responses, and conclusions subsequently drawn from that analysis. Research limitations/implications This paper assumes that the reader possesses some understanding of basic statistical concepts, such as means, variance, standardized scores, and null hypothesis significance testing (NHST). It assumes a “good‐enough” approach to library assessment, one that strives for the greatest possible statistical accuracy, reliability, and validity given the time and resource limitations within which most academic libraries operate. Originality/value The method provides a practical, sustainable, and effective library assessment technique using data from Radford University. The use of freeware to undertake the analysis also makes it financially viable.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.