11 SPEC Kit 352: Collection Assessment
administration supports collection assessment, internal stakeholders are interested in the results of
collection evaluation, and collection assessment has increased at the responding libraries over the last
five years. The next grouping indicates that qualitative data is the primary means of assessing collections
and the results of evaluations are used to make collection development decisions, but the data is still
difficult to gather. Few respondents believe that their external stakeholders are interested in the results of
collection evaluations.
The responses to a follow-up question about general library attitudes toward assessment group
more around the middle of the scale than those about the assessment climate. For example, the three
most common responses to “Collection evaluations are difficult to interpret…” (2, 3 and 4) were within
four percentage points (26%, 29%, and 30%, respectively). For the statement comparing the importance
of quantitative versus qualitative data the middle response (3) received over half the responses (37
or 56%).
Generally, the respondents most strongly believe that libraries should share collection analyses
and data (65% positive). There was also general agreement that collection evaluations should be
used to adjust allocation of funding for collections (53%), and that collection assessment is supported
by the theoretical foundations of collection development (51%). There was a weak consensus that
collection evaluation should be centralized (46% positive and 37% neutral), and no real consensus on
the difficulty of interpreting collection evaluations (fairly equal distribution across positive, neutral, and
negative ratings).
Successful Collection Assessment Processes
Forty-eight respondents provided examples of successful collection assessment processes at their
libraries. The most common thread reported (13 respondents) was the collection and analysis of
usage statistics. This was useful for both selection (and de-selection) purposes, as well as observing
longitudinal trends. The next most-common thread (11) was the use of evidence-based decision making
regarding differing aspects of collection development and management, including selection and de-
selection of electronic resources, the selection of resources to move to storage, and the allocation of
funds to collections. Another common thread was collaboration, reported in one form or another by
nine respondents. This collaboration was usually among other library staff, although two mentioned
collaboration with external partners. The other successes varied from disciplinary collection assessment
and data sharing to improvements to processes, negotiations with vendors, communication, and data
collection. A couple of the more intriguing responses included the ability to assess interdisciplinary
collections and greater support from library administrations.
Desired Change in Collection Assessment Processes
Thirty-nine respondents described aspects of their collection assessment process that they would change.
The most common thread (17 respondents) related to data: quality, collection, integration, and the sharing
thereof. This was often associated with the second most common thread, that of process improvement
(14 respondents). Other aspects of the process needing improvement include increased staffing, staff
development, planning of assessment, and improved efficiency. Interestingly, while five respondents
suggested greater centralization of data collection and analysis, one respondent indicated that the subject
bibliographers at that institution were invested in more responsibilities for assessment of their subject
areas. Also interesting were two respondents who indicated a desire for improvements in collaboration,
particularly with library staff.
Additional Comments
Most of these comments related to the unique environments of each institution. Most notably among
these were comments related to staffing, or lack thereof. Several mentioned having positions for
administration supports collection assessment, internal stakeholders are interested in the results of
collection evaluation, and collection assessment has increased at the responding libraries over the last
five years. The next grouping indicates that qualitative data is the primary means of assessing collections
and the results of evaluations are used to make collection development decisions, but the data is still
difficult to gather. Few respondents believe that their external stakeholders are interested in the results of
collection evaluations.
The responses to a follow-up question about general library attitudes toward assessment group
more around the middle of the scale than those about the assessment climate. For example, the three
most common responses to “Collection evaluations are difficult to interpret…” (2, 3 and 4) were within
four percentage points (26%, 29%, and 30%, respectively). For the statement comparing the importance
of quantitative versus qualitative data the middle response (3) received over half the responses (37
or 56%).
Generally, the respondents most strongly believe that libraries should share collection analyses
and data (65% positive). There was also general agreement that collection evaluations should be
used to adjust allocation of funding for collections (53%), and that collection assessment is supported
by the theoretical foundations of collection development (51%). There was a weak consensus that
collection evaluation should be centralized (46% positive and 37% neutral), and no real consensus on
the difficulty of interpreting collection evaluations (fairly equal distribution across positive, neutral, and
negative ratings).
Successful Collection Assessment Processes
Forty-eight respondents provided examples of successful collection assessment processes at their
libraries. The most common thread reported (13 respondents) was the collection and analysis of
usage statistics. This was useful for both selection (and de-selection) purposes, as well as observing
longitudinal trends. The next most-common thread (11) was the use of evidence-based decision making
regarding differing aspects of collection development and management, including selection and de-
selection of electronic resources, the selection of resources to move to storage, and the allocation of
funds to collections. Another common thread was collaboration, reported in one form or another by
nine respondents. This collaboration was usually among other library staff, although two mentioned
collaboration with external partners. The other successes varied from disciplinary collection assessment
and data sharing to improvements to processes, negotiations with vendors, communication, and data
collection. A couple of the more intriguing responses included the ability to assess interdisciplinary
collections and greater support from library administrations.
Desired Change in Collection Assessment Processes
Thirty-nine respondents described aspects of their collection assessment process that they would change.
The most common thread (17 respondents) related to data: quality, collection, integration, and the sharing
thereof. This was often associated with the second most common thread, that of process improvement
(14 respondents). Other aspects of the process needing improvement include increased staffing, staff
development, planning of assessment, and improved efficiency. Interestingly, while five respondents
suggested greater centralization of data collection and analysis, one respondent indicated that the subject
bibliographers at that institution were invested in more responsibilities for assessment of their subject
areas. Also interesting were two respondents who indicated a desire for improvements in collaboration,
particularly with library staff.
Additional Comments
Most of these comments related to the unique environments of each institution. Most notably among
these were comments related to staffing, or lack thereof. Several mentioned having positions for
