The Library assessed Public Services Goal #2: Information Literacy. All four Components of Outcome #3: Information Literacy Instruction for Course Related Instruction (B232: Introduction to the Discipline of Nursing) were evaluated.
The librarian assessed the library/Web resources listed on the students’ bibliographies (list of References). The students submitted two copies of their bibliographies to their nursing professor and the professor forwarded one copy to the librarian. The student assignment required them to use one book source; one professional Web source; two journal articles—one research article and one scholarly (peer reviewed) article. The performance criteria were: Activities were met – (Yes/No).
The assessment results indicate that the Library should continue to include an instruction module on the use of the resources of the Indiana University Libraries—especially CINAHL—in the freshman nursing course. Of particular concern to the library is that students seem to have problems recognizing research articles from scholarly (peer reviewed) articles.
Because applying the database limiters of “Research Article” or “Peer Reviewed” only applies to certain of the articles contained in the journal and not to each item published within the journal, students are retrieving literature reviews, continuing education units, conference proceedings, letters to the editor, and other non-research, non-peer reviewed pieces that are routinely contained within professional/trade publications. It is primarily the retrieval of these types of items that caused students to include inappropriate journal resources in their bibliographies.
Since this course has gone from 3 credit hours to 2 credit hours, a second day of information literacy instruction is likely not feasible. It might be possible to omit the instruction in IUCAT as the assignment permits students to use a nursing textbook as their required book source, and all but one student in this group did so. Additionally, since the required Web sources are not library-based (e.g. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: (CDC); National Institutes of Health (NIH); National Patient Safety Goals; etc.), it might make sense for the subject matter experts to discuss these sites with students. Doing these two things should allow more time for the librarians to concentrate on the research/peer reviewed article requirements.
The Library assessed the first module of a four module information literacy series presented in English Composition I & II (W131 & W132).
The outcome assessed by the Library was: Students will locate a book in the IU Kokomo Library using IUCAT. This outcome is a part of the Library’s Information Literacy goals for W131: English Composition I. The IUCAT outcome was assessed in 25% of W131 sections taught over the Fall 2008 semester or 4 of the approximately 16 sections (including the Freshman Learning Communities) of W131: Elementary Composition I offered in Fall 2008. The students used the online catalog, the campus printing system, retrieved a book from the stacks, and brought it to the librarian to match with their print-out.
The assessment results indicate that the Library should continue to include an instruction module on the use of the catalog of Indiana University Libraries in the freshman classes. While there were false-starts and assistance was provided if requested, the Library only judged the end result for this assessment. Because a variety of retrieval methods were accepted as “successful” the end result of the assessment fell within the 95-100% goal set for the project.
There are changes made in the IUCAT module every semester due to updates in the online catalog. However, because of the strong assessment results, this instructional module might be a favorable candidate for the development of an online tutorial to replace or supplement the current face-to-face delivery method.
The library assessed the cost per use of all print journal titles that had an active subscription during the 2006-2007 fiscal year in order to identify titles that cost more than $100 per use.
A spreadsheet with all active journal subscription titles was created and used to keep a statistical count of the number of times a title (whether current issue, bound issue or microfilm issue) was used from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007. These statistics were gathered as library student assistants re-shelved materials. Cost of the subscription, plus binding costs if applicable, was recorded for the same titles as the subscription was paid in the 2006-2007 fiscal year. The cost per use for current/ bound issues was calculated by totaling the cost of the subscription and binding costs, and then dividing the total cost by the number of total uses of the paper/bound issues. The cost per use of the microfilm was calculated by dividing the cost of the microfilm subscription by the number of microfilm uses. A total cost per use of each title was calculated by adding the cost per use of the paper/bound to the cost per use of the microfilm.
A total of 488 titles were assessed for cost per use. Of those 488 titles 302 exceeded the $100 cost per use limit. The statistical information was shared with all schools and departments and was used to initiate cancellation or format conversion (mostly print to electronic) discussions between the library faculty and the teaching faculty. As a result of those discussions many titles in print format were cancelled and a plan to create a more robust online environment for use 24/7 by library users was developed and implemented.
The Library assessed its facility, staff practices and resources.
The Library used Association of Research Libraries (ARL) LibQUAL+ ® survey which was distributed by e-mail to all students, faculty, and staff between February 12 and March 2, 2007.
The LibQUAL+ ® survey utilizes gap scores to determine if a library is meeting the level of service expectations of its users. The survey asks participants to rate, on a scale of 1-9 (1 being the lowest and 9 the highest score) the minimum, desired, and perceived levels of service that the library provides.
The Library will be focusing on Service Adequacy which is calculated by subtracting the minimum score from the perceived score on any given question, for each user. In general, Service Adequacy is an indicator of the extent to which the Library is meeting the minimum expectations of our users. The Association of Research Libraries, the creators of LibQUAL+ ®, set the gap scores which have a mean of 0 and may be positive or negative. The higher the service adequacy scores, the better the Library’s performance. Conversely, a negative score indicates that user’s perceived level of service quality is below their minimum expectations.
The Library has set the minimum Service Adequacy gap score of 0 as a benchmark on each outcome addressed by each question asked on the survey. Scores that are less than 0 will indicate areas of concern.
The following chart indicates the Service Adequacy scores for each question and group responding. The Library has already begun to initiate changes to correct any deficiencies that were detected.