X-Envelope-to: medlib-l@ubvm.BITNET
X-VMS-To: ELZIP::IN%"medlib-l@ubvm"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 11:42:00 CST
From:         JONES%ATHENA.DECNET@UTHSCSA1.BITNET
Subject:      an adequate collection

I believe the first two versions of the standards for medical school libraries
(published I believe in the J Med Educ and the BMLA) attempted to quantitatively
state what constitutes a good medical school library.  The latest version
developed by AAHSLD does not take a quantitative approach, and I've heard some
criticism for this.  You might want to review these documents to see if they
help you define what is an adequate collection.
        If Mark's question is driven by the need to justify a budget there are
some approaches which might help.  For instance, one could say that an academic
health science library should purchase a minimum of 2,000 monographs a year
or two-thirds of the annual medical book output as defined in the Majors Report
annual new book receipts statistics.  For audiovisuals you might say you have
an adequate collection if academic departments are willing to share half the
cost of 75% of the material purchased in a year, for example.  One might also
say you have an adequate collection if interlibrary borrowing statistics
remain relatively flat over the past few years while gate count or circulation
statistics have increased.
        Mark's question is a good one and I think all of us seek to answer it
every day.  Ultimately, it probably has no clear answer but that should not
stop us from trying to answer it.  I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who
uses performance indicators to try to answer the question, what they are and
how you use them.
        Regarding ILL of books, we place a "scorecard" in every book we borrow
from another library for use by one of our clients, and ask them to rate the
book 1) authoritative and should be in the library collection; 2)useful but
not essential for the library; 3)did not prove authoritative or useful and is no
   t
recommended for purchase.  Out of 30 books borrowed we generally get one or two
rated in category 1 each month.  (I am aware there are problems with making too
strong conclusions on this data, but still it helps me build an impression of
the adequacy of the collection).
        If you are looking for a citation to the literature, the article by
Truelson (Selecting for Health Science Library Collections When Budgets Falter,
BMLA 1976;64(2):187-195) is still useful, in my opinion.  I think if we are
confident about our selections over time then we can be confident about the
nature of our collections.
        I could go on about the promise and pitfalls of quantitative measures,
weeding, etc. but maybe someone needs the space or wants to carry the dialogue
further.
                                                                        Danny
=============================================================
+       Daniel H. Jones
+       Assistant Library Director for Collection Development
+       Briscoe Library
+       University of Texas Health Science Center
+       7703 Floyd Curl Drive
+       San Antonio, Texas 78284-7940
+       Phone:  512-567-2400
+       Fax:            512-567-2490
+                       BITNET:  JONES@UTHSCSA1
                        INTERNET:  JONES@UTHSCSA.EDU
=============================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU