collection assessment using modified brief test method

COLLECTION ASSESSMENT USING MODIFIED BRIEF TEST METHODby Ana Maria B. Fresnido, DLSU [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

BACKGROUND The DLSU Libraries:

regularly conducts collection assessment makes use of varied assessment techniques

but no attempt has been made to determine the appropriate collecting level

Collecting activity is based on the qualitative condition of the book collection

OBJECTIVES 1. To find out the current collection level of

printed books in the different subject areas.2. To accurately capture the qualitative condition

of the book collection.3. To objectively determine the appropriate

collecting activity level.4. To assess how the book collection is responding

to the program offerings of the university.

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONSInclusion

Processed printed book collection (including special collections) as of October 9, 2012

Other editions of the same title were considered as being held by the Library, thus were included in the counting and summing up the number of holdings

Exclusion Other types and format of

library materials

METHODOLOGY

THE ORIGINAL BRIEF TEST METHOD(DEVELOPED BY HOWARD WHITE)

Rank collection according to resultsLibrary must own 50% of titles in a level to pass that

levelThe highest level passed is the level for that

library

Check availability of titles against the library’s holdings

Apply White’s formula:Level 1 (over 750) Level 2 (401-750) Level 3 (151-400) Level 4 (150 or less)

Verify holdings using WorldCat

Select 40 titles (10 titles for each level of the 4 Conspectus levels) from authoritative bibliographies representative of all areas within each subject areaDo not take into consideration the existing holdings in the process of title selection

MODIFICATIONS MADE Step #1: Selected 40 list of titles ALREADY HELD by the Libraries: Reason: copy of authoritative bibliography (BBAL) used for compiling the list already had markings of which titles the DLSU Libraries’ currently held

Step # 4: was eliminated as a result of changes made on Step #1.

For subjects/class letters with no title listings from BBAL, the title listings were selected from the existing holdings (not from an authoritative list)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

STRENGTH/WEAKNESS OF THE COLLECTION

SUBJECT COLLECTIONS IN LEVEL 4 (SUPPORTS DOCTORAL AND POST-GRADUATE RESEARCH)

Class letter SubjectA-AZ General works

C-CT Auxiliary Sciences of History

K-KZ Law

L-LT Education

M-MT Music and books on music

N-NX Fine Arts

R-RZ Medicine

U-UH Military science

V-VM Naval science

SUBJECT COLLECTIONS IN LEVEL 3(SUPPORTS UNDERGRADUATE AND MOST GRADUATE STUDY)

Class letter SubjectD-DX History: general and old world F United States local historyH-HX Social SciencesJ-JZ Political ScienceT-TX Technology

SUBJECT COLLECTIONS IN LEVEL 2(BASIC INFORMATION: GENERAL MATERIALS THAT DEFINE AND INTRODUCE A SUBJECT )

Class letter SubjectB-BX Philosophy. Psychology. ReligionE History: America (General)P-PZ Language and literatureQ-QR Science

SUBJECT COLLECTION IN LEVEL 1(MINIMUM: BASIC MATERIALS)

Class letter SubjectG-GV Geography. Anthropology.

Recreation

LEVEL UNDETERMINEDClass letter SubjectS-SK Agriculture

MATCHING OF THE LIBRARIES’ COLLECTIONS AGAINST THE UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS/ACADEMIC PLANS

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM OFFERINGS/ACADEMIC PLANS BY COLLEGE

College Programs

Bachelor’s Certificate Diploma Doctoral JD Master’s Grand TotalCCS 9 1 2 5 17

CED 9 2 15 31 57

CLA 119 1 12 28 160

COB 15 4 3 11 33

COE 17 4 13 34

COL 1 1

COS 13 6 8 27

SOE 30 1 2 33

Grand Total 212 1 7 43 1 98 362

RESULTS OF THE MATCHING BETWEEN THE LIBRARIES HOLDINGS AGAINST THE UNIVERSITY’S PROGRAM OFFERINGS

Subject Class Letter

Bachelor’s Certificate Diploma JD Master’s Doctoral Grand Total

CL GL

Philosophy B 4 1 3 7 4 4Psychology BF 22 9 5 36 4 4Religion BL 1 1 3 3Practical theology BV 2 2 4 4 4History D 4 3 7 2 3History (Asia) DS 1 2 3 3 3Environmental science

GE 2 2 1 3




CL GL

Recreation. Leisure GV 1 1 1 3Economics HB 2 1 1 4 3 4Economic history and conditions

HD 21 2 2 25 3 4

Commerce HF 40 2 8 4 54 3 4Finance HG 2 1 3 6 2 3Political science J 11 1 12 4 3International relations

JZ 30 30 3 3




CL GL

Philippine law KPM 2 1 3 4 3

Theory and practice of education

LB 8 1 21 8 38 2 4

Special aspects of education

LC 7 1 8 3 4

Language and literature P 16 3 2 21 2 4

English PE 1 1 5 1 8 2 4

Languages and literatures of Eastern Asia, Africa and Oceania

PL 1 2 3 3 4

Literature PN 8 1 2 11 2 4




CL GL

Mathematics QA 12 1 7 4 24 2 4

Physics QC 5 1 2 8 2 4

Chemistry QD 3 2 1 6 3 4

Natural history (General). Biology (General)

QH 1 2 1 4 2 4

Physiology QP 1 1 2 3

Public aspects of medicine

RA 1 1 4 3

Technology T 3 2 1 6 3 4




CL GL

Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)

TA 5 2 7 3 3

Environmental technology. Sanitary engineering

TD 1 1 2 3

Mechanical engineering and machinery

TJ 1 2 1 4 3 4

Electrical engineering. Electronics. Nuclear engineering

TK 3 2 1 6 3 4

Chemical technology TP 2 3 1 6 3 4

Manufactures TS 3 1 4 3 3

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSION

A number of subject areas directly supporting the University’s program offering, appeared to be quite inadequate.

Environmental science (GE), Recreation and Leisure (GV), Theory and practice of education (LB), Language and literature (P), English (PE), Literature (PN), mathematics (QA), Physics (QC), and Natural history, General and Biology, General (QH),

The Libraries’ collections in general proved to be strong.

The basis of the development of its existing collection showed no definite direction as even subject disciplines that do not directly support the University’s program offerings revealed to be very strong.

Music (M-MT), Fine Arts (N-NX), Medicine (R-RZ), Agriculture (S-SK), Military Science (U), and Naval Science (V)

RECOMMENDATIONSBuild-up the book collection specifically for subject areas that directly support the University’s program offerings

Provide a concrete acquisition plan (3-year plan) that will guide all stakeholders (faculty members, being the subject specialists and the librarians) in the development of the collection

come up with a comprehensive list of acquisition commitment (AC) for the different subject areas taking into consideration the existing collection levels (CL) and goals (GL), and other perceived needs of the community as well as the financial capability of the Libraries

Proposed formula for determining AC: (GL-CL) + 1

RECOMMENDATIONSThe following acquisition commitment code, patterned after the Quantitative WLN Criteria for Determining CL (Current Collection Level) Ratings (Conspectus Technical Report) is proposed, with the Books-in-Print to be used as the source for determining the number of publishing output coupled with any authoritative list enumerating the “bests” for the different subject areas.

AC Code AC1 10% of publishing output* + 15% of the “Bests”2 20% of publishing output* + 30% of the “Bests”3 30% of publishing output* + 45% of the “Bests”4 40% of publishing output* + 60% of the “Bests”