5 SPEC Kit 352: Collection Assessment
widely, from fewer than 50 hours to more than 2000 hours per year for collecting the data, and from 20 to
200 hours for analyzing data. Extrapolating these estimates across all committee members, these libraries
devote an average of 2.4 FTE to collection assessment.
Purposes of Collection Assessments
In the survey, we asked about purposes of initiating assessments, as well as how completed assessments
were used. These are not always one-in-the-same, and we were expecting assessments used for more
purposes than those initiated.
As expected, nearly all respondents indicated that collection assessments were initiated for
reasons associated with collection development, followed by library administration or other library
purposes. Academic reviews, whether for accreditation, new programs, or institutional purposes, were
also common purposes reported. Initiating development of a shared collection was selected by nearly
half, while just over a third indicated that collection evaluations were initiated to evaluate a shared
collection. The most commonly mentioned other reasons include moving collections or space re-
allocation (n=8), other external reporting (n=5), budgetary purposes (n=8), and weeding or de-selection
(n=4). Intriguing comments include “understanding user behavior,” “answer questions from departments
about library funding and acquisitions,” and “maximizing our utility.”
Nearly every respondent has used the collection evaluations for the selection of materials for
moving, weeding, and/or de-selection (cancellation). More than two-thirds have used the evaluations
to demonstrate value and/or justify funding increases to library or campus administration, as well as to
evaluate collection strengths and weaknesses, and to adjust allocations of funds. Other uses reported by
the majority of respondents include accreditation, estimating costs of upgrading or new collections, and
identifying core works. We were impressed by the number of respondents who have used the evaluations
for comparison with their peer libraries.
Fewer than half of the respondents have used evaluations to demonstrate the value of the library
to patrons, develop or manage a shared collection strategy, or target collections for promotion and/or
digitization. Only 12 indicated that the results have been used to evaluate selector effectiveness. Other
uses include preservation, promoting faculty outputs, identifying patron interests, determining a strategic
use of space, and examining expenditures by format over time.
Data Collection Tools, Methods, and Frequency
For our survey, we were interested in discovering the data collection tools that are used and the frequency
of their use. The survey asked respondents to indicate which of 13 software and online services their
library has used for storing and analyzing data for collection evaluation purposes and any that they
would be interested in using in the future. Respondents reported using, on average, five tools and being
interested in using one tool, though one respondent reporting using 11 tools. It should be noted that
only 24 of the respondents (36%) identified tools that they were interested in (but had not yet used),
suggesting that librarians are taking the initiative and applying the tools they need.
Not surprisingly, all respondents use spreadsheets for analyzing data. The use of database
programs or servers was greater than the authors expected—45 respondents (68%) use Microsoft Access,
a database server, or both (nearly a quarter of respondents have used both). Most of the remaining options
have been used by between a quarter and a third of the respondents.
Over 80% of the respondents have either used or are interested in using data visualization tools
like Tableau. Between a third and half are either using or interested in using most of the tools, with
databases, spreadsheets, and visualization receiving the lion’s share of responses. A moderate number of
respondents expressed interest in using SpringShare’s LibAnalytics and/or statistical software like SPSS.
Previous Page Next Page