Users of

Academic and Public

GPO Depository Libraries

Users of Academic and Public

GPO Depository Libraries

By Charles R. McClure and Peter Hernon

Information Management Consultant Services, Inc. Manlius, New York

U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents

Washington, DC 20401

1989

Foreword

The Depository Library Program (DLP) traces its origins to a Congressional resolution passed in

1813, which provided for the printing of copies of congressional literature for distribution to State

governments and legislatures. By a series of subsequent Congressional actions over the years, the

DLP has evolved into a nationwide system providing free public access to Federal government information through a network of almost 1,400 depository libraries located in every state and Congressional district. During a typical year, more than 20 million copies of some 40,000 government publications are

distributed to depository libraries. In its Circular No. A-130 entitled "Management of Federal Information Resources," the Office of Management and Budget stated, "The depository libraries provide a kind of information 'safety net' to the public, an existing institutional mechanism that guarantees a minimum level of availability of government information to all members of the public." While this

"safety net" metaphor may serve to legitimate the DLP as a worthy Federal program, it also implicitly depicts the DLP as merely a secondary and passive document source of last resort, rather than as a primary and popular channel for ready public access to Federal information. The unfortunate fact is that prior to 1988 there had never been a formal study of depository users to determine the real

public impact of the DLP.

About two years ago the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) posed to GPO a series of background questions in connection with research supporting an OTA study on Federal information dis- semination. One of the OTA questions asked GPO to estimate the number of people who use depository libraries. As it was, GPO could not provide an answer; however, that particular question served as the impetus for the development of a formal GPO contract solicitation for a study of depository li- brary users. In January 1988, after the evaluation of competing proposals from offerors, GPO awarded the contract to Information Management Consultant Services, Inc., with Professors Charles

McClure and Peter Hernon as the principal investigators. Early on, the investigators sought the

advice and support of the depository library community. They formed an Advisory Board of depository librarians and appeared before the spring 1988 meeting of the Depository Library Council, where

they discussed their research plan and solicited suggestions from librarians. Both GPO and the investigators took considerable pains to keep the process open and participative throughout the course of

the study.

On February 15, 1989 the report, Users of Academic and Public GPO Depository Libraries, was

delivered to the GPO. I am pleased to announce that we at the GPO are delighted with the quality

and integrity of the study, as well as with the findings in this report. Additionally, I would like to

offer to readers a few personal observations, which you might bear in mind as you make your way

through the report:

1. First of all, it is most important that we appreciate the formal significance of this landmark study as part of the evolutionary development of the DLP. The study represents a first step

toward understanding the public impact and social value of depository collections and services.

And, in providing an enumeration of depository users with their demographic characteristics, this

study establishes a statistical baseline for future studies.

2. Because of the broad scope and complex nature of the task, the investigators found it nec- essary to make certain necessary, yet limiting, accommodations in the design and methodology of

the study. Though some safeguards were built into the study to compensate for the resulting limitations, it must be understood that the findings should be interpreted only within the overall context of the study and with a full understanding of the stated limitations.

3. Those limitations notwithstanding, I believe that the report reflects a sound and vibrant

DLP, providing government information services to millions of Americans every year. The

number of users enumerated indicates a level of public impact that far exceeds the definition of

"safety net". Rather, the findings limn the DLP as nothing less than a primary and heavily-used

channel for delivery of Federal information to the American public.

Hi
/V

4. These findings tend to support the argument for further enhancing and expanding the es- tablished DLP system, such as in the area of electronic information transfer.

5. This report raises some profound questions as to the significance of its findings in terms of

current program effectiveness and future planning for the DLP. We will be asking the Depository

Library Council to consider these findings and develop appropriate recommendations that will

assist us in our program planning. Therefore, depository librarians should direct any comments

or suggestions to a member of the Depository Library Council.

Before closing, I want to recognize and thank some of the many people whose cooperation and

good efforts contributed to the overwhelming success of the study. We are especially indebted to the

Advisory Board members, to the pretest site librarians, and to the staff members of the 850 depository libraries that participated in the data collection effort. Lastly, I would like to express our appreciation to Donald Marchand, Dean of the School of Information Studies at Syracuse University, and his

able staff for their extraordinary commitment and support throughout the course of the study.

DONALD E. FOSSEDAL

Superintendent of Documents
Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the members of the Advisory Board for their assistance and support. These

individuals include Jaia Barrett of the Association of Research Libraries, Dennis Bruce of Spartanburg County Public Library, Carol Gordon of the Milwaukee Public Library, Vicki Phillips of Oklahoma State University Library, Mark Scully of the Government Printing Office, Ann Watts of St. Louis

Public Library, and Steven Zink of the University of Nevada Library. In addition, we appreciate the support provided by Donald E. Fossedal, the Superintendent of

Documents. The Government Printing Office printed and distributed the survey packets. We appreciate the support provided by Library Programs Service and other units of the agency in the printing

and distribution of the forms.

We also appreciate the assistance provided by the staff at the pretest sites. Of course, the study

could not have been completed without the support of the staff and users who participated in the

actual study. We appreciate the care that many of them devoted to data collection.

The project could not have been completed successfully without the assistance and dedication of

Nancy Preston, Lindsay Ruth, and Liz Haggarty-Roach, who served as Research Assistants and administered the data check-in and coding phases of the study. Beth Mahoney assisted in the production

of graphics for the final report. We are especially grateful to all of them.

We also wish to acknowledge the support that the School of Information Studies, Syracuse University, provided. Without the support provided by Donald Marchand, Dean, the study could not have

been completed in a timely and effective manner.

V

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary ix

Chapters

1 Introduction 1

2 Users and Uses of GPO Depository Libraries 9

3 Study Design and Methodology 21

4 Study Results 39

Appendices

A. Explanation of Data Collection in 1983 Biennial Survey 47

B. Instructions to Librarians Participating in the User Study of Academic and Public Depository

Libraries 53

C. Depository Library Information Form 59

D. Academic Library User Ticket 61

E. Public Library User Ticket 63

F. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Categories 65

G. Count of In-house Users (User Log) 73

H. Publicity Signage 75

I. Data Handling Procedures 79

vii

Executive Summary

This study estimates the number of users of academic and public Government Printing Office

(GPO) depository library materials, and describes these users in terms of selected characteristics. The

GPO contracted this national survey, the first formal attempt to provide such data, to Information

Management Consultant Services, Inc. in January 1988. The study was completed in February 1989. Approximately 80 percent of the 1,054 academic and public depository libraries participated in the study during the Fall of 1988. Users of these libraries constitute only a portion of the users of all types of depository libraries and all types of United States Government publications. Furthermore, it should be stressed that this study examined users, not their uses, of depository materials.

The results from this survey estimate a minimum of 167,000 users, per week, of Government depository material in academic and public libraries. Depending on geographical region, the average

number of users per week ranges from 143 to 243 for academic libraries and 68 to 127 in public libraries. Depository users tend to be highly educated and almost evenly split by gender. They describe

themselves primarily as students or in professional or managerial occupations.

ix

Chapter 1 Introduction

Two fundamental questions that can be asked

about any library are:

• How many people use the library, its collec- tions and services?

• What are the demographic and other characteristics of these users?

At this time, there is little information available

to answer either question in regard to users of

the United States Government Printing Office's

(GPO) depository library program. Although "use

studies" have characterized general types of users of an academic depository library's documents collection, research has not fully identified, categorized, and compared types of users, nationally and for different types of depository

libraries.

Without information on users and uses, it is exceedingly difficult to engage in long-range

planning for the depository library program, to review program goals, and demonstrate accountability of the program. Descriptive information

may assist GPO and depository library staff in

developing and refining services and programs.

Perhaps more importantly, GPO policy makers

and other government officials can better un- derstand and characterize who uses different

types of depository libraries. Such data could

also offer general insights into the impact of the

depository library program on the public. ^

The intent of this study is to estimate the

number of users of depository collections and

services in academic and public depository li- braries during a specified time period, to ascer- tain selected characteristics of these users, and

to develop a methodology for estimating users and their characteristics. In the request for proposals (RFP 5190187)

that ultimately resulted in the awarding of this

contract, the GPO identified the purpose of the

project as "to acquire the resources to perform a study of Federal depository library usage" and, more specifically, the objective being "to define

the numbers and types of users of Federal de- pository collections and services." Thus, the fol- lowing investigation meets the specifications of a user—not use—study (see Chapter 2). Users,

and not the information-gathering behavior of

those users, is the focus of this study. In short,

"user studies should focus not on what libraries

do, but on what people do, or wish they could do

if they could obtain the necessary information"

(White, 1980, p. 83). More fundamentally, user

studies indicate who uses libraries and particular collections. Nonetheless, a user focus, especially in the context of GPO's depository library

program, raises a number of complex issues that

must be considered and ultimately resolved

before data could be gathered.

COMPLEXITY OF THE PROBLEM

Numerous difficulties are inherent in con- ducting a national user study. More than 1,000 user studies have provided "little information

which can be applied to problems involving

either the management of information work or the design of information products and services"

(Mick, Lindsey, and Callahan, 1980, p. 348). Lancaster (1977, pp. 299-311) has discussed some of

the reasons for these difficulties (see also Chapter 2). In addition, unique factors related to the

nature of depository libraries, and their individ-

' The Government Printing Office might integrate the dataset into its in-house systems, PAMALA and DDIS. These

ualized settings and historical practices, com- pound these difficulties. At a conceptual level, it is necessary to differ- entiate clearly and precisely between "use" and

"users." Further, "user studies" are typically

based on key assumptions related to the user's information needs, the situational context for seeking information, the availability of information sources and systems that the user may or may not understand, and so forth. Many tradisystems provide an overview of the member hbraries in the

depository program and enable the GPO to answer Congressional inquiries.
2

tional assumptions have been challenged and

new conceptual approaches, such as the "user- centric" model, have been proposed as a basis

for conducting future user studies (Dervin and

Nilan, 1986).

Another problem to be addressed is "Who

constitutes a user of the depository library col- lection?" For example, if an individual browses

depository material, is this person a "user?"

What if an individual browses a government

publication that the library received not as part

of its depository shipments but nonetheless that

publication is housed in the depository collec- tion? Is that person a "user?"

Some depositories are organized as separate

collections while others integrate documents

throughout their collections. Some depositories

maintaining separate collections still have depository materials in other locations. Even in in- tegrated collections, depository materials can be

"scattered" throughout the library or the li- brary system. Further, many depository libraries house and service their microforms in differ- ent areas of the library even if they have a "separate" depository collection. How can the

"users" of these materials be identified accurately?

Another problem common to user studies is how to deal with "secondary users." For example, faculty members at academic institutions

send support staff (i.e., graduate assistants) to gather material for them. Thus, a user study

may identify students as users when, in fact,

faculty members requested the depository publication. Another example of indirect users would

be those individuals who attend a class where

the faculty member conveys government information or who read a scholarly publication that

cites official sources. Can such "secondary" or

"indirect" users of depository materials be accurately identified?

Another concern is the degree to which user

studies accurately represent all users of a particular library. Despite the best efforts of most

research designs, some users will not be identified and some who are identified will not wish

to participate in such a study. This concern is especially difficult to resolve when users may go

back and forth between depository material and

other types of library holdings.

Finally, library users may not recognize that

the specific source they require is, indeed, a government publication received on deposit

through the GPO program. Recent studies have

suggested that even some librarians are un- aware of the difference between depository and

other types of Federal government publications

(McClure and Hernon, 1983; McClure, Hernon,

and Purcell, 1986). Thus, simply asking users if they consulted depository material may not pro- vide reliable and valid findings. The same may

also be true for library staff as well. In light of

this issue, the collection of data that accurately

describe users of depository materials is a complex and difficult problem.

These examples illustrate the issues to which

this study had to be sensitive and to address in

the study plan (see Chapter 3). The completion

of valid user and use studies necessitates that

both conceptual and practical issues be considered and resolved (Mick, Lindsey, and Callahan,

1980). In short, operationalizing, i.e., providing a measurable definition for the concept, "user of a

depository resource," requires careful analysis

and the acceptance of trade-offs. The conduct of user studies might be viewed

from two different perspectives: management

and research. The management perspective fo- cuses more on utility of the findings to decision

making and planning rather than on understanding the phenonemon at a more basic con- ceptual level. Clearly, managers often have dif- ferent requirements than researchers. User

studies are "error bound," which is to say

that—speaking in a research context—there

always will be unexplained "error." Such imprecision is common in virtually every type of measure in social science research. The issues to be addressed are:

• Identification of the likely sources of error

• Determination of how much error is acceptable, in a management context, for data

used in library planning and decision

making.

In short, "statistical and sampling error" should

not be confused with the utility of data for decisionmaking and planning. To dispose of user

studies and general data collection because of

their statistical and sampling error is similar to
3

ignoring the Consumer Price Index, because it also contains such error. (The perspective of this

study is one of providing data useful for decision

making and planning, although the investigators took steps to minimize sources of error—see Chapter 3.) Management studies should attempt to produce as high quality management data as

possible. Research methods and data collection

strategies that address previously identified

issues, yet still produce management data that

demonstrate reliability and validity, had to be

designed. Because the study examined users at a large number of academic and public depository libraries scattered across the United States,

the data collection process had to be clearly

specified and easy to complete, and not comprise

a time-consuming activity. Thus, it is important

to view this investigation as a first effort to pro- vide a preliminary count and description of

users, and to identify problem areas. With such

insights, subsequent investigators can improve

the precision and utility of their data collection.

One final general observation is in order.

Users of GPO distributed depository publications represent a subset of the users of many

documents collections and of a library's clientele. Further, the public seeks government in- formation from various information providers,

only one of which is a depository library. Therefore, any nationally administered study of depository users cannot reach conclusions such as

one-fifth of all library users consult depository

holdings or one-tenth of the users of government publications depend on a depository li- brary's collection.

ACADEMIC AND PUBLIC DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES

GPO's Depository Library Program: A Descrip- ies. The Midwest and Northeast have similar

live Analysis (Hernon, McClure, and Purcell, percentages.

1985) contains a detailed, descriptive analysis of rp^^^g ^^ich is based on data gathered in the GPO depository program. At that time, ^o,^^^ suggests participants in the depository

1,373 libraries participated in the program. As program by library type. The two private memof 1988, the number is 1,394. The latter figure bership libraries are the American Antiquarian

forms the basis for the present study. Because g^^-g^y the Boston Athenaeum, both locat- only a difference of 21 libraries separates both Massachusetts. Together, academic and

numbers, the findings of the earlier book prob- p^^lic libraries comprise over three-fourths of

ably still provide an accurate representation of

^.^e participants in the program,

depository libraries. Thus, this section offers a

brief overview of libraries participating in the Table 1-1.—Library Types Participating in the

depository program based on findings from the Depository Library Program*

1985 study.

The geographic distribution for depository li- Type Number

braries is as follows (Figure 3-2 graphically depicts these regions): Academic 765 55.7

Public 278 20.2

• Northeast, 24.8% Federal 60 4.4

• Midwest, 25.8% Law school 146 lO.B

. o cianm Court of law 60 4.4

• South, 29.7% c* * ' State agency 45 3.3

• West, 18.9% Historical society 6 .4 • Outside the United States, 0.8%. Private membership 2 .1 other 11 The South has both a larger number and per- ^ , ..o^^o .^aa

Total \,oio luu.u centage of depositories than do the other geo- graphical regions. On the other hand, the West *Source: Hernon, McClure, and Purcell (1985), p. 59. has the smallest percentage of depository librar-
4

Given the heavy concentration of depositories

in two library types, academic and public libraries, provide a meaningful focus for the current

investigation. Law school libraries, although a

part of an academic institution, comprise a special case, as do the remaining library types.

Further, inclusion of all library types complicates data collection and the drawing of comparisons.

DATA ON THE NUMBER OF DEPOSITORY LIBRARY USERS

To date, the primary efforts to identify the

number of depository library users occurred as part of the 1983 and 1985 GPO Biennial Surveys. Since 1950, depository libraries have com- municated with the Office of the Superintendent of Documents, through this survey, every

two years. This process of communication has

taken the form of a questionnaire administered

by the GPO to all depository libraries.

The 1983 Biennial Survey, which differed

sharply from any administered previously or

since, included a section entitled "Statistics Collection." Questions 43-50, which are pertinent

to our study, asked for data regarding the

number of:

• Patrons who used the documents department

• Directional questions asked

• Reference/research questions asked

• Database reference searches conducted

• Referrals given

• Interlibrary loan requests

• Interlibrary loans filled. Responses to these questions are one of the few

sources of data specifically describing users and

uses for most of the population of GPO depository libraries.

Data that address these 1983 Biennial Survey

questions were to be provided from a five-day

data collection period. Original instructions for completing these questions were included in Administrative Notes [no. 7 (1983): p. 2 + ] and then

"clarified" in numbers 8 and 9. In addition, the

August issue (no. 11) reprinted a worksheet to

assist in data collection and reporting. Appendix

A reprints the appropriate sections from Administrative Notes. It should be noted that neither the 1983 nor 1985 Biennial Survey clearly

and fully defined the term "user". Inclusion of questions 43-50 in the 1983 Biennial Survey generated controversy. Some depository librarians believed that data collection re- quired too much effort for them to be able to answer the questions accurately. Others considered the instructions for completing the questions unclear, or simply did not recognize the

importance of providing the GPO with such

data. Librarians also raised questions about the

reliability and validity of the management data

to be collected. However, depository librarians

did respond to these questions. Table 1-2 summarizes the responses to the eight questions.

Clearly, academic and public libraries vary in

the extent to which they participated in the

study and provided answers to any one question.

Table 1-2.—Selected Summary Data from the 1983 Biennial Survey*

Question Academic Public Total

43. If your library has a separate documents collection, how many patrons used the Avg. 148 Avg. 69 Avg. 133 documents department in a 5-day period? (N = 442)** (N = 105) (N = 547)

44. In a 5-day period, how many directional questions were asked? Avg. 34 Avg. 34 Avg. 34

(N = 691) (N = 247) (N = 938)

45. In a 5-day period, how many reference/research questions were asked? Avg. 60 Avg. 82 Avg. 66

(N = 700) (N = 250) (N = 950)

46. In a 5-day period, how many database reference searches were done? Avg. 4 Avg. 2 Avg. 4

(N = 644) (N = 212) (N = 856)
5

Table 1-2.—Selected Summary Data from the 1983 Biennial Survey*—Continued

Question Academic Public Total

47. In a 5-day period, how many referrals were given? Avg. 5 Avg. 6 Avg. 5 (N = 685) (N = 247) (N = 932)

48. In a 5-day period, how many items that the library selects were not available for Avg. 3 Avg. 3 Avg. 3 use for which the library staff searched stacks and other locations? (N = 671) (N = 242) (N = 913)

49. In a 5-day period, how many interlibrary loan requests were sent out? Avg. 2 Avg. 2 Avg. 2 (N = 664) (N = 237) (N = 901)

50. In a 5-day period, how many interlibrary loan requests were filled? Avg. 2 Avg. 2 Avg . 2 (N = 662) (N = 240) (N- 902)

*For a copy of the 1983 Biennial Survey, see Hernon, McClure, and Purcell (1985), pp. 196-207. **N is the number of respondents. That number varies from question to question.

The 1985 Biennial Survey was much shorter

than the 1983 version and did not require depository Hbraries to submit statistics based on a

five-day sampling period. Only one question has

particular interest to this study:

Approximately how many people use the Depository Collection, either directly (in house) or indi- rectly (through telephone requests, ILL, etc.) in a "normal" week?

Respondents then estimated the number. Table

1-3 summarizes the responses, on a state by

state basis. The 1,188 libraries responding to the

question indicated that there were 167,827 users

of depository libraries during a "normal" week.

Based on the numbers reported from respondents, the GPO projected that, for the entire depository library program, there were:

• 195,214 users per week

• 10,151,165 users per year.^

However, it is important to remember that li- brarians responding to the question merely re- ported estimates or impressions.

It is unclear how respondents estimated the

number of users during a normal one-week

period.^ For example.

^ It is interesting to note that the Office of Technology As- sessment (1988) reported different totals from the 1985 re- sults. The Office projected 8,710,416 users of the 1,188 re- sponding libraries for the year. Adjusting, somehow, for the population of depository libraries, the projected number of annual users became 10,264,800—not the 10,151,165 listed in Table 1-3.

^ At the spring meeting of the Depository Library Council

to the Public Printer (March 10, 1988), the investigators

made a presentation on the study. In response to a question

concerning data collection for the 1985 Biennial Survey. members of the audience disclosed differences in data coUec-

• Did the estimate include users of depository

publications throughout the entire library or only in a part of the library (i.e., a sepa- rate collection)?

• Were users of microfiche, maps, and other

types of depository publications included?

• Was the response a "best guess" or did the

librarians engage in empirical data collec- tion?

Neither is it clear how the GPO "projected" the

number of users to provide an estimate for the

entire program, per week or per year. Data collected for an arbitrarily chosen week

lack the external validity (generalizability) of

data gathered from a random sample of weeks

throughout a year. Yet, it is too much of a burden to expect depository libraries to collect data for a sufficient number of weeks to construct a profile of users for an entire year. Any

projection based on data collected for one week,

be it either five or seven days, distorts management data and is impressionistic, at best.

tion methodologies and assumptions toward data collection. For example, they might have equated the number of uses with the number of users. They also collected data at widely

divergent time periods or guessed the number of users. Not

only are the GPO's reported totals suspect, but also no

standardized procedures guided data collection.
6

Table 1-3.—Estimated Number of Depository

Library Users as Reported from tlie 1985

Biennial Survey *,**

Table 1-3.—Estimated Number of Depository

Library Users as Reported from the 1985

Bienniai Survey*, **—Continued

state Number of

libraries

Estimated number of users (per week)

Estimated

weel<ly averageState Number of

libraries

Estimated number of users (per week)

Estimated weekly average

AL 22 3,125 142 AK 6 1,140 190 AZ 13 2,548 196 AR 18 663 37 CA 100 21,665 217

C. Zone CO 20 2,609 130 CT 18 2,859 159 DE 7 335 48 DC 41 5,087 124 PL 41 5,548 135 GA 15 1,305 87 Guam

HI 11 764 76

ID 9 1,150 128

IL 44 4,197 95

IN 22 1,854 84

lA 17 2,715 160 KS 17 2,316 136 KY 18 1,525 85 LA 23 3,088 134 ME -8 1,023 128 MD 16 1,403 88

IVlA 28 4,465 159

Ml 40 5,978 149

Micronesia 1 15 15 MN 22 4,614 210 MS 10 962 96 MO 28 2,638 94 MT 8 2,252 282

NE 14 1,626 116 NV 8 995 124 NH 8 590 74 NJ 39 3,921 101 NM 10 824 82 NY 71 7,408 104 NC 30 4,947 165 ND - 8 359 45 OH ' 54 6,107 113 OK 18 2,214 123 OR 15 2,141 143 PA 58 9,929 171 PR 4 1,630 408

Rl 9 721 80 SC 17 2.161 127 SD 9 997 111 TN 20 1,038 52 TX 55 17,228 313 UT 10 1,524 152 VT 6 1,663 277 VA 32 3,672 115

VI 8 475 59 WA 17 3,458 203 WV 14 922 66 Wl 27 3,907 145

WY 8 546 68

Total 1,188 167,827 129

Totals Projected for 1,386 Depository Libraries: Total number of users per week 195,214

Total number of users per year 10,151,165

'Source: "Summary Results of 1985 Biennial Survey"

(1985), p. 8. **The investigators were unable to separate academic and

public libraries from the original 1985 Biennial Survey data.

The data reported in Table 1-3 neither result- ed from a formalized data collection effort nor

addressed the concerns discussed in the section

of this chapter, "Complexity of the Problem."

Numerous questions regarding the reliability of

the data and the validity of the projections can

be raised. Nonetheless, the estimates represent

a "first approximation" effort and, together

with the results of the 1983 Biennial Survey,

offer the only available information on the

number of users of depository libraries. The limitations of such data suggest the need and importance of conducting a study to:

• Better estimate the number of users of depository materials

• Devise a data collection strategy to guide

future attempts to identify the number of

users. The more consistency there is among future

data collection efforts, the more likely that, over

time, data can be compared and trends noted.

The study described in this report attempts to explain the importance of knowing the number

of users and to develop a strategy to collect data. Review and modification of that strategy

may well provide the depository library community with a methodology for collecting trend

data. This study deals with complex issues and

draws attention to basic questions for which the

Government Printing Office, its congressional

oversight and appropriations committees, and

the depository library community need answers

if long-range planning is to occur.
7

STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Dealing with a population of approximately

1,400 libraries representing different types (academic, public, state, and special) is an extremely

complex undertaking. Addressing unique situations further complicate data collection. For

these reasons (as well as limited funding for the

study), the investigators (with the permission of

the Government Printing Office) limited the

study to users of academic and public depository

libraries.

As specified in the original Request for a Proposal, the three study objectives are as follows:

• To identify, review, and analyze the exist- ing literature on users and uses of GPO depository libraries

• To identify the number of users of depository libraries during a specified time period

• To categorize and compare users by library

type (academic and public libraries) and se- lected descriptive characteristics.

Accomplishment of these objectives would allow

the GPO, and the library community, to have a

clearer perspective on the current users of aca- demic and public depository library collections.

At the same time, study documentation and

data collection instruments can be reviewed and

modified as appropriate. The result would pro- vide a framework for generating user data on a regular basis.

A careful review of the literature regarding

users and uses of the GPO depository libraries

accomplishes the first objective. Chapter 2, which is based on a manual and online searching of key indexes and databases, summarizes

the results of that review. An empirical data

collection process accomplishes the second and

third objectives. The data collection effort esti- mates the number of users of the depository col- lection of academic and public libraries and pro- vides information on selected descriptive variables for these users. Chapter 3 describes the re- search design and explains how data were col- lected, while Chapter 4 reports study findings.

SUMMARY

Reliable management information on how

many people use depository publications located

in academic and public libraries, as well as a descriptive profile of the characteristics of these

users, is currently not available. Yet such information can serve as a basis for better understanding the role that academic and public depository libraries play in the provision of gov- ernment publications to the public. Further,

such information is important in planning effec- tive information services and products to be dis- seminated through academic and public depository libraries.

The Government Printing Office contracted

with Information Management Consultant Services, Inc., to investigate the number and types of

users of academic and public depository library

publications. The GPO requested that the study

be initiated in January 1988, and completed by

February 15, 1989. The investigators developed,

pretested, implemented, and completed a procedure (research design and methodology) that ac- complished project objectives, with limited re- sources. Completion of this study is but a first step in describing how many people use the depository

collections of academic and public libraries.

Future efforts can build upon this study and

assist the depository library community in ex- plaining the effectiveness and impact of depository services and collections.
8

REFERENCES

Dervin, Brenda and Michael S. Nilan. "Information

Needs and Uses," Annual Review of Information

Science and Technology, edited by Martha E. Williams, vol. 21 (White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industries, 1986), pp. 3-33. Hernon, Peter, Charles R. McClure, and Gary R. Purcell. GPO's Depository Library Program (Norwood,

NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1985). Lancaster, F.W. The Measurement and Evaluation of

Library Services (Washington, DC: Information Re- sources Press, 1977). McClure, Charles R. and Peter Hernon. Improving

the Quality of Reference Service for Government

Publications (Chicago: American Library Association, 1983).

McClure, Charles R., Peter Hernon, and Gary R. Purcell. Linking the U.S. National Technical Information Service with Academic and Public Libraries

(Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1986). Mick, Colin K., Georg N. Lindsey, and Daniel Calla- han. "Toward Usable User Studies," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 31 (September 1980): 347-356.

Office of Technology Assessment. Informing the Nation (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1988). "Summary of 1985 Biennial Survey," Administrative Notes [Library Program Services, Government

Printing Office], 6, No. 15 (October 1985): 2-8. White, Herb. "Library Effectiveness—The Elusive

Target," American Libraries, 11 (December 1980): 682-683.
Chapter 2

Users and Uses of GPO Depository

Libraries

USER VERSUS USE STUDIES

User studies identify who uses libraries, the

characteristics of these individuals, and their

frequency of library use. These studies might

examine different demographic and socio-economic characteristics. For example, they might

isolate on age, gender, level of education, race, marital status, occupation, and/or income level. Except for education level and, perhaps, occupation, the pool of characteristics infrequently re- veals "the average or typical library user" (see

Chen and Hernon, 1982). Researchers have also

probed characteristics such as proximity of the

library from one's home or place of employment, and the extent to which one is a reader

(Ibid.). Although the development of a composite

profile of "the library user" is difficult, certain,

general insights nonetheless emerge.

User studies attempt to determine which individuals or group of characteristics, or variables,

best describe or predict who are library users. In some instances, these studies have differentiated between frequent and infrequent users. User studies concentrate on the user and who

that person is. Use studies, on the other hand,

probe information-gathering behavior in the

context of information needs and examine barriers to information gathering. Such research

may investigate nonusers as well as users of a

library. These studies depict the reasons for use and nonuse, as well as analyze the process by

which people gather information.

User studies provide an important context for use studies. Indeed, a logical research approach

is, first, to conduct a user study as a basis for

then preparing a use study. Knowing more

about the user community enables subsequent

researchers to probe use related issues. Library

literature is replete with studies depicting users

and uses within all types of libraries. Documents librarianship, however, is not as well rep- resented by either type of research.

Research has not focused on users of depository collections and the characteristics of these in- dividuals. Rather, the body of research comprises use studies. Previous investigations of

government publications housed in depository

collections (primarily GPO collections) have generally compared general library use to that of

the depository collection! s). The purpose was to place documents use within a broader context

general library use. Researchers also have ex- amined purposes for documents use, methods

for locating needed information in documents,

the extent and type of assistance given by li- brary staff, reasons for nonuse of government

publications, and, occasionally, the extent of the

sample's awareness and use of different depository materials and services.

Studies investigating circulation or citation

patterns may identify a list of titles, agencies, or SuDocs stem numbers that received the most

mention and presumably use. The insights

gained from such studies have value to collec- tion development only when a subject context is imposed on the list. Since differences emerge

within and across disciplines, it is important to identify, for example, the use patterns of aca- demic social scientists in comparison to other

groups. It should not be assumed that one general list applies to all library types and disci- plines (Hernon and Purcell, 1982). Furthermore,

although the evidence is incomplete and some- what contradictory (see Figure 2-1), a small pro- portion of government publications may account

for the bulk of use—circulation and in-house

use.

9
10

STUDIES OF DOCUMENTS USERS AND USES

This section identifies the pool of studies and

discusses methodological considerations. Initially, research focused on librarian perceptions of

collection users and uses. Subsequent research

(since 1972) began to examine both users and

nonusers. The next section highlights the findings of the various studies. Presentation of findings, however, is complicated by methodological

weaknesses and variant return rates to many of

the studies portrayed in Figure 2-1. For decades, various research efforts have

surveyed libraries about their collections of government publications. These surveys reflect the

extent to which responding libraries collected

government publications, the value that they at- tached to these publications, patterns in collec- tion arrangement, common and unique methods

of acquisition, and variations in administrative

practices. Occasionally, these surveys probed the

uses that librarians "made of government publications . . . and . . . librarians' perceptions of

the usefulness of government publications as in- formation resources" (Weech, 1978, p. 177). In a few instances, public librarians described users and characterized heavy users of their documents collection as high school or college stu- dents, and businessmen (Packard, 1967).

DeVelbiss (1956) examined use from another

perspective. She investigated how users of the

library at the University of California gained

access to those government publications that

they borrowed. She discovered that subject entries in the university library's card catalog pro- vided the major access point. Furthermore, fac- ulty and graduate students were more likely

than undergraduates to attempt retrieval of

government publications from the author

catalog.

Nelson Associates (1969) surveyed users of the

New York Public Library Research Libraries

and reported that government publications comprised 7 percent of all the material used during

the time period studied. They discovered that

people holding a professional degree used government publications more than individuals

having academic degrees.

Before 1972, no major study had probed documents use directly from people who were not in

the library at the time of data collection. In a landmark study, McCaghy and Purcell (1972)

surveyed faculty at one academic institution

about their use and nonuse of government publications; they also collected data about student

use and nonuse but never reported these findings. The researchers surmised that their study

"might serve as a stimulus for [the completion

of] other studies of the users of government publications and as a reference point to which such

studies can be compared" (Ibid., p. 8). For rea- sons to be discussed later in the chapter, their

study has not become that reference point. However, McCaghy and Purcell directed attention to an important area of research and thereby en- couraged the conduct of future studies. To date,

12 studies have been reported in the published

literature (see Figure 2-1). ^'^-^

Clearly, the published research (the 12 studies

and early surveys of librarians) focuses on use

rather than users. Although the various studies

have identified users, they have been less interested in the development of a composite profile

of these users than to ascertain informationgathering behavior and to provide insights that

perhaps might be useful for collection development purposes and stimulating faculty and stu- dent use of documents holdings.

' The number of reported studies was identified by examining the Uterature review conducted by McCaghy and Purcell (1972) and updating it with an examination of Hernon

(1979). For the subsequent years, we conducted an online search of the ERIC database, reviewed the CD-ROM ver- sions of Library Literature and PAIS Bulletin, and manually

checked the most recent issues of Resources in Education

and Library Literature. Therefore, the literature identified

in this chapter reflects the published and indexed literature through January 1989.

^ Figure 2-1 omits citation studies that have identified patterns in the use of government publications. For a discus- sion of such studies see Hernon and Shepherd (1983), and

McClure and Harman (1982),

^ A type of use study has focused on bibliographic instruction and offered a case study of the success of librarians in promoting the use of government publications. In such studies, students receive a type of learning intervention and a subsequent questionnaire upon the completion of a class

project. There might also be an analysis of the sources cited

in student papers and the presentation of implications de- rived from the experience. Such research has been conduct- ed by Berthold and Ford (1977) and Sheldon (1982).
Although the study reported herewithin con- centrates on users, it might be beneficial to summarize the research base identified in Figure 2-1. The discussion therefore provides in- sights into both users and uses, and thereby il- lustrates that more is known about uses than

users (and nonusers).

The 12 studies tend to examine documents

users and uses at one type of institution—aca- demic. The exception is Kahles (1982), which

compares use (as measured through circulation

records) between an academic and a public li- brary. When investigators survey users about

documents uses, their studies often focus on one

constituency group—faculty members. Analyses

of circulation records and in-house use statistics

pick up other users, e.g., students. Only one

study (Nolan, 1986) concentrated on documents

use by students enrolled at an academic institution. The findings of this study confirm the as- sumption that student use should be examined

in the context of course needs and faculty expectations. With two exceptions, investigations of

documents use have comprised case studies that

probed use at one institution. Kahles (1982)

compared two libraries, while Hernon (1979) ex- plored use at seventeen academic institutions

arrayed from baccalaureate to doctoral-granting.

Figure 2-1.—Studies Depicting Users/Uses of Depository Collections and Services

Type(s) of Study libraries Return rate (%, N) Study population Methodology used

studied

Cook (1985a, b) Academic.

De Meo (1985) do 30.9% (25 respondents).

Fraser & Fisher (1987) do 41% (137

respondents). Hernon (1979) do 74.4% (683

respondents).

Hernon & Williams (1976).

Kahles (1982)

do 51% (218

respondents).

Academic

and Public.

McCaghy & Purcell (1972) Academic 89% (103 respondents).

Mcllvaine (1975). .do 12.3% (120

respondents).

Users of documents collection, 1982-83. Examined

manual check-out records

at Arkansas State University, 1980-83.

Systematic sample of full- time faculty at South Flori- da Library, Tampa.

UCLA science and engineering faculty.

Full-time faculty in economics, history, political sci- ence, and sociology at 17 Midwestern academic insti- tutions.

Full-time faculty at University

of Nebraska at Omaha.

Systematic random sample

of 1981 circulation records

at Chicago Public Library and University of Illinois, at Chicago, Library.

Faculty who use the Frei- berger Library, Case Western Reserve. They sampled one-third of faculty in the social sciences and

humanities.

Attached survey form to monthly list of new acquisitions distributed to inter- ested faculty.

Analysis of circulation records and in-house use data.

Mailed questionnaire.

Do.

Mailed questionnaire and

follow-up interviews.

Mailed questionnaire and se- lected interviews.

Analysis of circulation records.

Mailed questionnaire.

Do.
12

Figure 2-1.—Studies Depicting Users/Uses of Depository Collections and Services—Continued

Type(s) of Study libraries Return rate (%, N) Study population Methodology used

studied

Nolan (1986)

Sears & Moody (1984)

Wilson (1973)

do 65.9% (130

respondents).

.do

.do 58% (100

respondents).

Random sample of under- graduates in political sci- ence, history, and eco- nomics at Claremont Colleges.

For 1 year period (1981-82), data collected on titles re- shelved and circulated at Miami University.

All full-time teaching faculty

at Trinity University.

Do.

Analysis of circulation records

of faculty and students, and

in-house reshelving statistics. Forms completed by users (no record of return rate) and of circulation records.

Mailed questionnaire.

Watson & Heim (1984) do . Sun/ey of users who bor- rowed documents during 2V2 month period in 1983; and circulation records for same period.

Sources: Cook, Kevin L. "Circulation and In-house Use of Government

Publications," The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 11 (1985a): 146-150.

. "Gathering Useful Circulation Data in the Documents

Department," RO. 25 (Winter 1985b): 223-228. De Meo, Mary Ann E. "Faculty Use of Government Documents

at the University of Florida Library. 1985 (unpublished; no

other bibliographic information available). Fraser, Emily J. and William H. Fisher. "Use of Federal Gov- ernment Documents by Science and Engineering Faculty," Government Publications Review, 14 (1987): 33-44. Hernon, Peter. Use of Government Publications by Social Sci- entists (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1979). and Sara Lou Williams. "University Faculty and Federal Documents," Government Publications Review, 3 (1976): 93-108.

Kahles, William. "Circulation of Government Documents in Two

Large Urban Depository Libraries" (1982, ED 255 215).

Survey research provides self-reported data on

faculty or student use and nonuse of government publications, but not necessarily those

publications received as part of the GPO depository program. One limitation to self-reported

data is that they may produce systematic bias

in certain of the responses and inflate the role

of government publications in meeting information needs. The wide variation in return rates may also introduce bias. This is especially true

for the studies with small return rates. Two studies used a mailed questionnaire as well as probed faculty information-gathering behavior through selected in-person interviewing

McCaghy, Dawn and Gary R. Purcell. "Faculty Use of Govern- ment Publications," College & Research Libraries, 33 (January 1972): 7-12.

Mcllvaine, B. "University of Connecticut Faculty Use of Gov- ernment Documents," Connecticut Libraries, 17 (1975): 49-

51. Nolan, Christopher W. "Undergraduate Use of Government Documents in the Social Sciences," Government Publications Review, 13 (1986): 415-430.

Sears, Jean L. and Marilyn K. Moody. "Government Docu- ments Use by Superintendent of Documents Number

Areas," Government Publications Review, 11 (1984): 101-

112. Watson, Paula D. and Kathleen M. Heim. "Patterns of Access

and Circulation in a Depository Document Collection under

Full Bibliographic Control," Government Publications Review,

11 (1984): 269-292.

Wilson, Marilyn. H. "Faculty Use of Government Publications at

Trinity University," Texas Library Journal, 49 (May 1973): 76-

80.

(Hernon and Williams, 1976; Hernon, 1979).

Interviewing served, in part, as a necessary vali- dation of questionnaire responses and as a check on self-reporting.

Four studies employed alternative means of

data collection. Kahles (1982) analyzed a random sample of circulation records and en- couraged subsequent investigations to use supplementary data collection techniques. Sears

and Moody (1984) examined circulation records

and the use of in-house material. Watson and

Heim (1984) distributed a brief questionnaire to faculty and students, and analyzed circulation

records. Cook (1985a, 1985b) conducted a study
13

of in-house use and analyzed circulation records.

He opined that circulation records provide a convenient way to learn more about library users and patterns of documents use. However,

he did not compare alternative methods of data

collection. Rather, he favored convenience as the key factor for determining use patterns,"*

but cautioned that any analysis of circulation

patterns must honor borrower privacy (1985b).

The existing base of research using circulation records and counts of in-house use has not

sufficiently placed use of academic depository

collections in the context of users, their academic disciplines and specialties, and subject areas. In effect, we see what has been used and how

often, but we gain no insights into either the

users themselves or nonusers. Therefore, few

specific guidelines for collection evaluation and

weeding emerge. It appears, though, that (Sears

and Moody, 1984, p. Ill):

government publications have a low rate of use compared to the overall size of the documents

collection. Publications of the Bureau of the

Census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, other statistical and reference titles, and congressional

publications accounted for a large amount of the

materials used. A relatively small number of publications satisfied the majority of patrons'

needs. Most noticeably, none of the studies have

been replicated. In effect, we see use patterns at one point in time at selected institutions and do

not observe trends over time. Clearly, replication should become an important feature of

future studies.

Extensive comparisons among the campuses

investigated in the 12 studies are difficult to make given the differences in sampling procedures, return rates (ranging from 12 to 89%),

and modifications in survey instruments. There were also variations in data categorizations,

questionnaire emphasis, and the method of

counting circulation records and in-house use. Questionnaires were modified to meet local needs, and not all questionnaires were subjected

to pretesting. When studies have probed circulation patterns and in-house use, the question be- comes "Do such methods adequately reflect use

of government publications, particularly those

received through the GPO program?"

As background to the recent report of the

Office of Technology Assessment, Informing the

Nation (see Note 2, Chapter 1), the General Accounting Office (1988) surveyed depository and

nondepository libraries about Federal Information Users' Current and Future Technology

Needs. For responding regional depositories, se- lective depositories, and nondepositories, the

GAO summarized librarian perceptions about

the "general subject material of Federal information that . . . [their] library currently uses or has used during the past 12 months." The GAO

also probed the sources from which libraries ac- quire Federal information, the types of equipment in place in the libraries or planned for purchase, and selective future needs or prefer- ences. Survey findings provide librarians' general impressions of the use made by their clientele, without collecting data directly from the

information-gathering public.

Rubin's (1986) extensive examination of in- house use, although not aimed at documents col- lections, becomes the yardstick against which

in-house use might be measured in the future.

He assessed different methodologies, ones that

might be applied to depository collections. Studies of in-house use though focus on use patterns,

not the compilation of user information. His

study reminds us that use must be carefully defined and that use may occur within different contexts: borrowing of materials through circulation or interlibrary loan, the asking of refer- ence questions, or the use of material in-house.

Combining these different facets produces a more complete picture of actual use. Survey re- search deals with reported use but does not dis- play the information-gathering behavior actually practiced. Chapter 3 addresses the signifi- cance of these findings to our study. That chapter also stresses a criterion emphasized by Cook

(1985b, p. 227)—the ease of data collection. The

more difficult that staff members find data col- lection, the less likely that they will be to participate in it and produce data useful for planning and decision making.

'' According to Cook (1985b, p. 224), "circulation data will not be a valid indicator of use of materials that are briefly consulted and reshelved."
14

COLLECTIVE FINDINGS FROM THE RESEARCH DEPICTED IN

FIGURE 2-1

Users

The variables describing users include aca- demic department and speciality, academic

rank, the percentage of time involved in differ- ent activities (teaching, research or scholarly

writing, administrative duties, and other), the

class level of students taught, involvement in

sponsored and nonsponsored research, and fre- quency of library use. However, the researchers

analyzed these variables to depict patterns of use and nonuse, not to develop a profile of

users. Hernon (1979) found that among the academic

social scientists surveyed, economists and politi- cal scientists accounted for the largest percentage of heavy and moderate users of government

publications. Sociologists almost evenly divided

among heavy and moderate users, and limited users and non-users. On the other hand, only 40

percent of the historians were heavy or moderate users. In his study of undergraduate use, Nolan

(1986) examined the variables of student major,

class level, and frequency of documents use. He

suspected that "the variable class may have

been a hidden factor in tables purporting to show a statistically significant relationship between major and another variable" (p. 421). In- stitutional variables were not explored since the

investigation comprised a case study of undergraduate use at one institution.

Purpose of Documents Use

A major reason for academic social scientists' use of documents, regardless of discipline, is to obtain census or normative data. Economists

rated "current events and issues of interest"

third among eight categories of purposes for which they use documents. Political scientists

listed this category first along with census or normative data. Both sociologists and historians

listed this category fourth. However, elsewhere

in the questionnaire used by Hernon, academic

social scientists were asked about the ages of

the documents that they consult most often. Except for historians, they mainly seek current

publications produced within the last three

years. Economists, political scientists, and soci- ologists have a wide range of purposes for which

they use current publications. They use them

for census or normative information, current

events and issues of interest, research and technical reports, and resources of value to students

(Hernon, 1979; Hernon and Purcell, 1982).

Undergraduate use of government publications is directly related to coursework and then

students must suspect that documents "would

be a good source for meeting their needs"

(Nolan, 1986, p. 419). To be expected, graduate

students use documents for thesis related re- search. However, as McClure and Harman

(1982) caution, the amount of thesis related use might be characterized as limited. Due to lack

of awareness and perhaps other reasons, graduate students do not cite government publications as frequently as they might.

Eraser and Fisher (1987, p. 43) suggest that

implicit in the probing of the purpose behind

documents use is the premise "that government

documents are indeed valuable." As they note, on the surface, . . . this would seem to go with- out saying, however, the data gathered here ap- pears to throw some doubt on that premise. If this information is so valuable, why aren't . . . faculty making better use of it in both their re- search and teaching?

This question has significance for the study re- ported in Chapters 3 and 4. It must be remembered that libraries comprise one of many information providers. When people have information needs, they might not turn to libraries

(Chen and Hernon, 1982). Eraser and Eisher

(1987, p. 43) may well be correct that a library's

constituent groups need "greater awareness . . . as to the content and value of government publications." However, such a conclusion is beyond

the scope of this study to verify.

Methods for Locating Needed

Information in Documents

A comparison of the methods used to locate

documents showed that regardless of discipline,
15

academic social scientists rely extensively on

the monographic, periodical, and bibliographic

literature of their discipline for awareness of

what the Federal government issues. Mailing

lists constitute the second most frequently mentioned source of reference for economists and so- ciologists seeking current Federal information.

These mailing lists allow them to receive not

only lists of new publications but, sometimes,

also the publications themselves and ephemera.

With these sources of information they can keep

abreast of new developments and policy

changes. Historians, on the other hand, are the

most likely to draw upon libraries for assist- ance. They rated assistance from library staff members as a third priority technique, while

other academic social scientists listed staff as- sistance much lower (Hernon, 1979).

Academic social scientists frequently do not

rely on one single method for locating needed

government publications or information. It is not uncommon for them to use different methods, depending on such factors as the purpose

for which the publications are needed and the

recency of the published information. Apparently, many of them do not engage in extensive lit- erature searches to uncover all the potential source material on a given topic (Hernon, 1979).

Instead, they rely on agencies and sources al- ready familiar to them or confine their searches

to a few types of government publications (so too do scientists and engineers). Furthermore,

social scientists may check the library's central

card or online catalog to see what source material might be available on the topic. Sometimes,

they may not search beyond this; they might

even assume that the catalog reflects the comprehensive holdings of the library.

Hernon and Williams (1976) discovered that

the majority of faculty respondents learned to find government publications through self-in- struction—a process of trial-and-error, sometimes combined with information instruction

from a librarian. The means by which they

learned to locate publications had little relationship to the frequency of documents use, since

the percentage of those who learned by trial- and-error and who also used documents fre- quently (34%) was nearly the same as those who

learned through a formal course (37%) or

through informal instruction by librarians

(35%).

Although based on limited evidence, it ap- pears that undergraduates identify "a document

as being of value to them through the intercession of a librarian, i.e., by asking for information on a particular topic and discovering a document of relevance through the reference interview process" (Watson and Heim, 1984, p. 285j.

They might also locate relevant documents

through faculty referral, an index, a card catalog, or an online catalog. In contrast, graduate

students and faculty "show a broader range of

finding techniques . . ., rely less on the subject

approach to the card catalog, and are much

more frequently looking for known items" (Ibid.,

p. 286). Watson and Heim surmise that "cataloging documents is likely to maximize use by the

largest segment of the university user population" (p. 289).

Extent and Type of Assistance

Received from Library Staff Members

in the Use of Documents

Library users, regardless of the frequency of

their documents use, are likely to request assist- ance only occasionally. Perhaps half of the documents users request assistance only "sometimes," while another 25 percent need assist- ance "frequently."

Academic social scientists are as likely to re- quest assistance in locating specific documents

as they are to request reference assistance (i.e., aid in finding materials or information to answer a specific question or solve some problem on which they are working) (Hernon, 1979).

Clearly, academic social scientists have diverse

needs and interests, and various problems

emerge in their search for government publications and information.

McCaghy and Purcell (1972) found that most

of the users of the documents collection express

satisfaction with the assistance given by the li- brary staff members. Similarly, Hernon (1979)

discovered a small percentage (7.2) of faculty

members who are reluctant to request assist- ance in using the documents collection.
16

Reasons for Non-Use of Documents

McCaghy and Purcell (1972) revealed a significant rate of faculty nonuse (62%) for the li- brary's documents collection, while Wilson

(1973) found that only 32 percent of survey re- spondents made no use at all of Federal documents. For Hernon and Williams (1976), the per- centage of faculty nonuse was 31. The difference

may be accounted for by the fact that, in their

total, McCaghy and Purcell included faculty

members who used other libraries and who obtained personal copies of government publications. They also sampled faculty members ran- domly and excluded science faculty members,

while including those in the humanities. Faculty use and nonuse of government publications

must be judged in relation to faculty utilization

of other library resources and to the efforts of

campus librarians to promote usage of library

resources. .. The difference in percentage of documents' nonuse may suggest that non-respondents are, in fact, nonusers. On the other hand, the differ- ence may be accounted for by the divergence in

response rates. A distinction must be made between nonusers of the library's documents col- lection and nonusers of government publications. Some faculty members use documents

held by other libraries, or they own personal

copies of documents. As only McCaghy and Purcell (1972), and Hernon (1979), reported this dis- tinction, comparisons among studies are further

impaired.

The most important, self-reported reasons for nonuse are that:

• Government bodies publish little or nothing

of value to the subject specialization of aca- demic social scientists

• Faculty are unaware of (or unfamiliar

with) the existence and organization of the

documents collection

• Too much time is required to gather needed

government information.

During the interview phase of the Hernon study

(1979), academic social scientists elaborated on

the time factor, stating that they do not always

need government publications for their teaching—that, instead, they rely on current, capsulized information found in newspapers, periodicals, and loose-leaf services. Government publications, some reported, provide in-depth coverage, but it may be too time-consuming to extract the few pieces of pertinent information. A relat- ed problem is that because the Federal government publishes so extensively it can be difficult to locate the few publications most beneficial to the immediate needs of faculty members.

With the advent of CD-ROM and special packages that the private sector has developed (e.g., machine-readable versions of the Monthly Catalog of United States Government Publications),

it may be quicker to identify a pool of titles that

might have potential appeal. The problem,

though, is that the library may not hold all the

titles and that the user would have to either

visit other depositories or use interlibrary loan

services. Interlibrary loan does not always

produce requested source material in a timely manner. The overwhelming reason for nonuse by un- dergraduates is that they did not (or thought

that they did not) need documents to fulfill course requirements (Nolan, 1986, p. 419). Students may not be required to research a topic

and produce a paper citing government publications, or the U.S. government might not publish

material pertinent to the course or the assignment.

Which Documents Are Used

The studies that analyze circulation records

and monitor in-house use patterns identify

types of publications that patrons either borrow

or examine internal to the library. Conflicting

findings have emerged due to differences among

the institutions studied and the methodologies

employed. Such studies have not developed a

conceptual approach that yields data meaningful for collection development. The studies have

not sufficiently placed total uses within the context of academic departments or information

needs (see Chen and Hernon, 1982; Hernon and

Purcell, 1982). Neither have such studies at- tempted to match their findings to survey and

other data (e.g., Hernon and Purcell, 1982).
17

Hypotheses

Typically the research has not engaged in hypothesis testing. Or, where the research has,

there might be some design problems with the

investigation or a low response rate. A number

of hypotheses, however, have been tested and

either supported or rejected, but only in the

context of academic library users and uses. Low

return rates and other factors discussed in this

chapter, in fact, complicate a determination of

whether or not a hypothesis can be supported.

Support or rejection of a hypothesis may be re- lated to cell size and other factors. It is important to know not only that there is statistical

significance but also the strength of that signifi- cance. These points must be remembered when

evaluating the following hypotheses. Clearly,

these hypotheses merit further examination and

not mere acceptance.

Those Rejected

Use

• Highest degree offered by the academic in- stitution is a statistically significant factor

in documents use

• Library variables such as collection ar- rangement, classification scheme used, per- centage of depository items received, documents entered into public card catalog, and

staff size have an impact on faculty use

• Frequency of library use is a good indicator

of frequency of documents use

• There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the incidence of use of the library's

documents collection between faculty members in one discipline and those in any of

the other disciplines

• The variables of frequency of library use,

discipline, or highest degree offered are not

statistically significant factors for determining whether a social scientist is cur- rently engaged in, or completed within the

past year, a scholarly activity intended for publication that cited a government

publication(s) in the bibliography or foot- notes

• The tendency to cite government publications in bibliographies and footnotes is an

accurate indicator of library use. (However,

citations provide an indication of verifiable

documents use).

Those Supported

Users

• Faculty members at baccalaureate and

master's-granting institutions are as likely

to use government publications as those

social scientists situated in doctoral-granting institutions

Use

• There is no statistically significant differ- ence among faculty members as to how

they learned to find materials in the documents collection

• There is no statistically significant differ- ence across discipline, highest degree of- fered, or institutional control as to the

levels of government of which publications are used

• There is no statistically significant differ- ence between faculty members engaged in

sponsored research projects and those who

are not as to their use of computerized

search systems that access government in- formation contained in bibliographic or nu- meric databases

• There is no statistically significant differ- ence between the source of funding and

whether or not machine-readable databases

are searched

• Academic social scientists do not differ significantly across highest degree offered or

discipline as to the specific search system(s)

used

• Social scientists at doctoral-granting insti- tutions profess a greater awareness of in- dexes and other retrieval tools than do

their counterparts at baccalaureate and

master's-granting institutions

• There is no statistically significant differ- ence among faculty members as to their reasons for limited use and nonuse of government publications

• Faculty members in one discipline do not

differ significantly from those in any of the

other disciplines as to the purposes for which they consult government publications
18

• In collections where the library card catalog is used as a means of collection access, the subject section is the primary means of access

• There is no statistically significant differ- ence between the frequency with which fac- ulty members ask library staff for assist- ance and any reluctance on the part of fac- ulty members to request assistance

• Social scientists do not differ significantly

according to discipline or highest degree of- fered as to the kinds of assistance that they

ask from the library staff

• Social scientists are no more likely to ap- proach library staff for assistance in locat- ing a specific document than they are to re- quest reference assistance

» Social scientists do not differ significantly across disciplines or institutions as to their

means of locating needed government publications. (For access to government information held in the library, they rely primarily on the public card catalog or cita- tions to documents found in the general lit- erature or special bibliographies of their

subject field)

• There is no statistically significant differ- ence among faculty members as to how

they learned to find materials in the documents collection

• Current publications (defined variously, i.e., last decade or past three years) receive more use than older titles.

CONCLUSION

The published research has focused on documents use rather than offering a detailed profile

of users. The research has identified the extent

of general library use in comparison to use of

government documents collections, the reasons

for use and nonuse of government publications,

and the impact of personal, institutional, and li- brary variables on use. The studies tend to con- centrate on academic institutions and their fac- ulty. Users and uses of public libraries have not

been reported, and research has not drawn comparisons between users and uses of academic

and public libraries.

Personal variables include department, subject area of teaching, and extent of involvement

in research, teaching, and administration. Typical institutional variables are highest degree of- fered and type of institution (public or private).

Library variables are collection organization

and arrangement, the offering of programs that

might increase public awareness of documents,

the number of personnel servicing documents

collections, the extent that government publications are entered in card catalogs, percentage of

item numbers received, circulation of documents, location of depository materials in the li- brary, and classification scheme employed.

Use, not users, provided the conceptual basis

for the studies depicted in Figure 2-1. In spite of

the body of research on depository library use,

little is known about users—who they are. Li- brarians, educators, researchers, and policy

makers can neither describe nor estimate who is or is likely to be a user of the depository library

program administered by the Government

Printing Office. Further, research has neither

adequately compared users across types of depository libraries nor applied Rubin's approach

(1986) to an analysis of in-house documents use. The literature review reported in this chapter

serves as a reminder that a study documenting

users must employ different methodologies

aimed at discovering and monitoring users at various service points within a depository li- brary. The resulting picture will provide the

most complete snapshot of the number of depository users to date. The study reported in the

following chapters offers a foundation from

which subsequent research can build.
19

REFERENCES

Berthold, Carol A. and Barbara J. Ford. "Reaching

the Undergraduate with Government Publications:

A Case Study in Bibliographic Instruction" (1977,

ED 168 465). Chen, Ching-chih and Peter Hernon. Information

Seeking: Assessing and Anticipating User Needs

(New York: Neal-Schuman, 1982). Cook, Kevin L. "Circulation and In-house Use of Government Publications," The Journal of Academic

Librarianship, 11 (1985a); 146-150.

. "Gathering Useful Circulation Data in the

Documents Department," RQ, 25 (Winter 1985b): 223-228. DeVelbiss, Elizabeth M. "A Study of the Use of the

Subject Card Catalog in Locating Government Doc- uments in the University of California Library"

(Unpublished Master's thesis, University of California, 1956). Eraser, Emily J. and William H. Fisher. "Use of Federal Government Documents by Science and Engineering Faculty," Government Publications Review,

14 (1987): 33-44. General Accounting Office. Federal Information

Users' Current and Future Technology Needs [GAO/

GGD-89-20FS] (Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, 1988. Hernon, Peter. Use of Government Publications by

Social Scientists (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing

Corp., 1979). and Clayton A. Shepherd. "Government Publications Represented in the Social Sciences Citation

Index: An Exploratory Study," Government Publications Review. 10 (1983): 227-244. and Gary R. Purcell. Developing Collections of

U.S. Government Publications (Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press, 1982). and Sara Lou Williams. "University Faculty

and Federal Documents," Government Publications

Review, 3 (1976): 93-108. Kahles, William. "Circulation of Government Docu- ments in Two Large Urban Depository Libraries"

(1982, ED 255 215j.

McCaghy, Dawn and Gary R. Purcell. "Faculty Use of Government Publications," College & Research Libraries, 33 (January 1972): 7-12. McClure, Charles R. and Keith A. Harman. "Government Documents as Bibliographic References and

Sources in Dissertations," Government Publications

Review, 9 (1982): 61-72. Nelson Associates Inc. User Survey of the New York

Public Library Research Libraries (New York,

1969). Nolan, Christopher W. "Undergraduate Use of Government Documents in the Social Sciences," Gov- ernment Publications Review, 13 (1986): 415-430. Packard, Sarah R. "The Use of U.S. Government

Publications in Small and Medium-Sized Public Li- braries" (Unpublished Master's thesis. University

of Chicago, 1967). Rubin, Richard. In-House Use of Materials in Public

Libraries (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Graduate School of Library and Information Science,

1986). Sears, Jean L. and Marilyn K. Moody. "Government

Documents Use by Superintendent of Documents

Number Areas," Government Publications Review,

11 (1984): 101-112. Sheldon, P.R. "Effect of Orientation and Instruction on Use of, and Satisfaction with, a Government

Documents Collection in a University Library" (Ph. D. dissertation. University of Michigan, 1982). Watson, Paula D. and Kathleen M. Heim. "Patterns

of Access and Circulation in a Depository Docu- ment Collection under Full Bibliographic Control,"

Government Publications Review, 11 (1984): 269-

292. Weech, Terry L. "The Use of Government Publications: A Selected Review of the Literature," Gov- ernment Publications Review, 5 (1978): 177-184. Wilson, Marilyn. H. "Faculty Use of Government

Publications at Trinity University," Texas Library

Journal, 49 (May 1973): 76-80.

Chapter 3

Study Design and Methodology

This chapter presents the research design for the study. As part of that design, the chapter

explains the process used to identify the libraries from which data were collected. In addition,

the chapter discusses the methodology employed

for data collection and describes the data collec- tion instruments. Chapter 4 summarizes study

findings.

The selection of an appropriate research

design is based, primarily, on (1) the study objectives, (2) the specific data needed to address the

research questions, and (3) the resources available to conduct the investigation. The research

questions (based on the study objectives described in Chapter 1) are:

• What is the number of users of academic

and public depository publications for a

specified time period?

• What are selected characteristics of these

users

• Gender

• Educational level

• Occupation (for public library users)

• Academic status (for academic library

users).

The study develops a methodology for portraying the number of users for all academic and

public libraries participating in the depository

program. For the study, the investigators, with

the concurrence of the Advisory Board, selected a user ticket survey, combined with the completion of a log to count users of in-house depository publications and a general depository information form, as the most appropriate techniques for a national data collection effort. Figure 3-1 presents an overview of the research

design.

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

In conducting a study such as this, the investigators assumed that:

• Depository libraries adhere to GPO specifications and accession those government

publications received on deposit with an

identification/acquisitions stamp

• They will not include any government publication requested by interlibrary loan that

is identified with a PB, or another type of

NTIS accession number, or with an ED or EJ number

• Microfiche users might consult a support

service such as the one operated by the

Congressional Information Service or Readex. Libraries may purchase a duplicate

or replacement copy of a depository title, through either the public or private sector. In both instances, the users will be counted

• Self-administered user tickets may underestimate the number of users

• The more complex, time-consuming, and

longer the data collection process, the less likely that library staff and users will participate, thereby increasing the probability

that poor quality data would emerge

• Users may make multiple uses of depository publications and services; the number of users will be less than the number of uses

• A sufficient number (and distribution by

geographical region and library type) of depository libraries will participate in the

study. (Based on past successes of the GPO

in soliciting survey data from depository li- braries, the investigators anticipated an ac- ceptable response rate—at least 70%).

Further, the study collected management rather

than research data (see Chapter 1 for the dis- tinction). Based on evidence compiled from a number of other user studies, it is likely that

the study has the following limitations:

• It is impossible to capture all user contacts with depository publications and services

• Users may inadvertently be counted more

than once

• All possible locations where users may consult depository publications cannot be monitored; thus, it is important to monitor key

service points

21
22

FIGURE 3-1

OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH DESIGN

Population of Academic

and Public Depository Libraries

Research

Questions ^ Development of Data

Collection Instruments

General Reliability

and Validity Controls

User Tickets

Library Information

Form

In-House

Materials Use Lot

Pretest Data

Collection Instruments

T

Administration of

Data Collection Instruments

General Reliability

and Validity Controls

Data Analysis

\

Findings and Conclusions
23

• User tickets can only be administered effec- tively at times that staff are present at the

service points

• In some depository libraries, closed stacks

may inhibit the completion of an assess- ment of in-house materials use

• Depositories that totally integrate their

holdings may experience problems in the

identification of users and monitoring in- house use of depository publications

• Some depository library staff members and

users may not wish to participate in a

study, may choose not to complete user

tickets, or otherwise not cooperate with

data collection activities. Users were identified and counted in terms of

specific uses that they made of depository publications and services. The focus is on users, not on their uses or the time involved in meeting an

information need. The study is not concerned

with outcomes, the resolution of information

needs or patron satisfaction.

As suggested in previous chapters, completion

of the study involved addressing complex issues

and making decisions resulting in a series of

trade-offs. Limited funding and the need for more than 1,000 libraries (and various staff in those libraries) to collect data placed constraints on the design of the study. The research design

developed for this study recognized the difficul- ties inherent in completing a national user study and attempted to build in as many safe- guards as possible to ensure the collection of

data demonstrating reliability and validity.

KEY DEFINITIONS

Five definitions were central to the completion of data collection and implementation of

the design depicted in Figure 3-1:

• A depository publication is any paper copy, microfiche, or map that the GPO has dis- tributed to the library as part of the depository program. The library has probably

marked the publication or microfiche

jacket with an ownership stamp. In addition to the copy received on deposit, a li- brary may purchase duplicate or replacement copies of the Statistical Abstract of

the United States and other basic titles. Use of duplicate or replacement copy for

titles listed as a GPO sales item will be

counted as a depository publication, so too

will CIS and Readex microfiche. The focus

is on the title rather than the particular

copy

• A depository service refers specifically to a

service point where the patron seeks access

to information contained in a depository

publication. If staff members, for example,

supply an answer from a depository publication, then this use falls within the scope

of the study

• User of a depository publication or service is an individual who comes into contact with

a depository publication. The contact may

be through a library staff member, i.e., telephone reference service or staff supplied answer from a depository publication.

Use of any index or other reference tool that is privately published (e.g., the Index

to U.S. Government Periodicals or the

American Statistics Index), by itself does

not result in the identification of a user. To

be a user, that person would have to consult a source identified in the reference

tool, request a source through interlibrary

loan, or have a staff member use a depository publication. However, those individuals consulting Readex or CIS microfiche

would comprise users

• In-house use of a depository publication en- compasses consultation of a depository publication in the reference collection, open

and closed (where clientele are permitted

access to publications) stacks, or a microforms or maps collection. Such activities as

briefly looking at a depository publication

while standing at the shelves, or scanning

microfiche or a map, comprise a "use." However, the present investigation examines use only as a means of identifying users

• A reference question is one that involves the use of a depository publication. If a ques-
24

tion results in either library staff members

using or directing a patron to a depository

publication, then staff members complete

the data collection instrument.

These definitions are based on the writings dis- cussed in Chapter 2 and discussions at the Advisory Board meeting of March 10, 1988 at the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer.

Appendix B reprints the instructions to li- braries participating in the study and amplifies on definitions, assumptions, the standardization

of data collection, and data collection procedures. The data reported in the next chapter

must be viewed in the context of the constraints

specified in this chapter and Appendix B.

STUDY POPULATION

Based on an examination of A Directory of

U.S. Government Depository Libraries (Congress.

Joint Committee on Printing, March 1987), the

investigators identified 770 academic and 284

public libraries. Some 1,054 academic and public

libraries participate in the depository program.^

Table 3-1 indicates the distribution of these li- braries based on the geographic regions used by

the U.S. Bureau of the Census (see Figure 3-2).

Table 3-1.—Study Population

Region Academic Public (N = 770) (N = 284)Total

West* 134 73 207

Midwest 209 84 293

South 268 53 321

Northeast 159 74 233

Total 770 284 1,054

'The region "West" as used in this study includes the Census regions West and Pacific.

' The total of 770 academic and 284 public depository li- braries identified from A Directory of U.S. Government Depository Libraries (Congress. Joint Committee on Printing,

1987) varies slightly from 765 and 278 identified in Hernon,

McClure, and Purcell (1985) and reported in Table 1-2. The

explanation for this discrepancy is probably the actual change in the composition of academic and public libraries

in the depository program in the past five years. The dis- crepancies between the two sets of numbers are not signifi- cant. The population used for this study is 770 academic li- braries and 284 public libraries.
25
26

The investigators considered the possibility of

sampling from the population rather than at- tempting to collect data from all academic and

public depository libraries. However, to estimate

the number of users at nonresponding libraries,

the size of the sample would have to include a

substantial portion of the population (Slonim,

1960). Because of this, the investigators asked

all 1,054 academic and public depository libraries to participate in the study.

The investigators constructed a machine-readable database of academic and public depository

libraries and entered data for the following variables:

• Library name

• Depository library identification number

• Host state

• Census Bureau geographic region. In addition, for academic libraries, they added

data regarding institutional student enrollment,

library budget, highest degree offered, and

number of library staff. For public libraries,

data regarding library budget, population

served, and number of library staff were included. The American Library Directory, 1986-1987

(1987) was the primary source for identifying

the data for the above mentioned variables.

One reason for constructing the database was

to generate more recent descriptive data than

those reported in Hernon, McClure and Purcell

(1985) regarding the academic and depository li- brary population included in this study. A

second reason was to generate a list of those li- braries that would be asked to participate in the

study. Finally, the variables in this database

served as a means of checking the degree to which those libraries participating in the study were representative of the larger population (external validity). The purpose was to estimate

the number of users in non-responding libraries.

This aspect of the study is discussed in greater

detail in the "Quality of Data" section, presented later in the chapter.

IDENTIFICATION OF THOSE

Figure 3-3 offers a graphic depiction of the

people to be included in the study. Library cli- entele who enter an academic or depository li- brary may or may not use depository library

services and publications. This investigation

studied only those users at library service points

most likely to contain depository publications or provide depository reference service. At some of

these service points, in addition to counting the

number of users, librarians also collected background information about the users' characteristics.

It is impossible for library staff to monitor

every user and identify everyone who actually

used depository publications and services. Complicating matters, libraries may scatter depository holdings through different departments and

branches, or they may integrate all or part of

their documents into their general collection.

Moreover, because the location of service points

for depository publications varies among participating libraries, each library had to decide

where to collect the required data.

PERSONS TO BE COUNTED

For these reasons, the approach outlined in

Figure 3-3 is the strategy for identifying those

people to participate in the study. Library staff members can count those people:

• Who come into the library and contact depository publications and services

• Outside the library who request information contained in depository publications

(telephone or mail reference service) or who

seek a depository publication on interli- brary loan.

The service points most likely to contain depository publications or provide depository reference

service would be the general reference and/or

documents department—the location of the central depository collection, microforms room, depository maps service area, circulation desk,

and interlibrary loan office. Service points in

the libraries surveyed may include subject divi- sions as well. Monitoring the use of depository

publications in libraries that totally integrate

holdings is complex and places an added burden

on staff. The opportunity for an undercount is greater in such instances.
FIGURE 3-3

IDENTIFICATION OF THOSE PEOPLE

TO BE STUDIED

Depository Library

Clientele

Academic and Public

Depository Libraries

User of

Non-Depositor}'

Library Materials

User of

Depository Service

or Materials

Count Users at Library Service Points Most Likely

to Contain Depository Materials or Provide Depository

Reference Service

* Documents Reference Collection

* Open Stack and Closed Stack Areas (only closed stack areas that permit patron access will be monitored)

* Microforms and Maps Area

* Circulation Area

Interlibrary Loan Department

COLLECT USER BACKGROUND

INFORMATION AT SELECTED

SERVICE LOCATIONS
28

There is great variation in service arrangements among depository libraries. For example,

not all depository libraries have open stacks.

Often, those with closed stacks do not permit

browsing. Therefore, not all libraries would be

able to compile a record of in-house users. In addition, some libraries merge different service

points, while other depositories offer the gamut

of services depicted in the figure.

ADVISORY BOARD

The Advisory Board assisted in an initial review of the research design and data collec- tion process. The members received a draft of

the first three chapters of the report the first of

March, 1988, with a request for their comments

and suggestions. They offered numerous suggestions and met with the investigators at the

spring 1988 meeting of the Depository Library

Council to the Public Printer. After that meeting, they reviewed the revised data collection in- struments and offered additional suggestions.

They also participated in the pretest of the data

collection instruments. In January 1989, they

had an opportunity to review a draft of Chapter

4.

DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS

The study relied on three types of data collec- tion instruments:

• Depository library information form (one to be completed by each depository library)

• User tickets

• In-house materials user log.

The following sections discuss each instrument.

Depository Library Information Form

The purpose of this form was to gather up-todate descriptive data on each depository participating in the study. These data can provide a

context that may assist in making information on the number and types of depository users more meaningful. The 11 questions elicited

basic information about the depository collec- tions and administration of the data collection process. The information necessary to answer

these questions was readily available to depository librarians and required a minimal level of

effort to report. (Appendix C reprints the form.)

User Ticket

At each library participating in the study,

either a staff member or a user himself/herself

completed a user ticket. Appendix D contains

the academic library version of the ticket, and

Appendix E prints the public library version of

the ticket. The only difference between both

tickets is in the occupational characterization of

respondents. For academic libraries, the focus was on academic status, as opposed to the general occupation category listed in the public li- brary user ticket. The occupational characterization for public library users was based on the

scheme developed and used by the U.S. Bureau

of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor. Appendix F explains the Bureau's occupational

groupings.

It should be stressed that public library user

studies have frequently found gender, occupation, and educational level to be good descriptors of those people who visit the library. The

Advisory Board believed that these three variables would provide useful descriptive information about depository users. Both the academic and public library user

tickets could be completed via three different

techniques:

• By the user (self-administered)

• By the user with the assistance of the staff

(staff-assisted)

• By staff members (based on their observation).

Descriptive information on the individual was

collected only in the first two instances. Staff

members at the various service points encour-
29

aged patrons to complete the user tickets. They

were instructed, if necessary, to ask patrons the

questions and record appropriate responses on

the user ticket. When staff members assisted patrons with the user ticket, the staff were encouraged to ehcit

background information on users. At academic

institutions, staff members who completed tick- ets based on observation only were instructed to indicate the gender of the user and whether

that person was a faculty member, student, etc. In those instances in which staff members were

unsure of status, occupation, or educational

level, they were instructed to leave the category

blank and not guess. The investigators recognize

that a number of completed user tickets could

contain no information other than the fact that an individual used a depository publication, for example, at the documents reference desk. It was not always possible to obtain background

information about a user because either the

person did not want to provide such information

or the library staff member was too busy to assist the user in completing the form. In such

cases, the user or the staff member was in- structed to complete the user ticket to the

extent that the ticket noted that a person (male

or female) used a depository publication.

To recap, libraries distributed user tickets at those locations where staff members serviced

government depository publications. Staff members were asked to: (1) have users complete the user ticket, (2) assist them in completing the

ticket, or (3) complete the ticket for the user. Thus, staff members were instructed to:

• Monitor the number of users asking refer- ence questions in-person, by telephone, or by mail, and to complete a user ticket,

either themselves or in conjunction with

the users. Completed tickets should include

as much data for each user as possible.

Minimally, they should indicate that a user made contact at that service point with a

depository publication

• Count the number of interlibrary loan re- quests for depository publications. Whenever a request is made, staff should compile

the data requested on the user ticket. When the document sought has an identifi- able NTIS or ERIC retrieval number, that

publication is not counted. When a library

handles requests for borrowing depository

publications from other institutions, whether formally or informally, staff should complete a user ticket for each transaction

• Count all United States depository government publications that are borrowed and

complete the user ticket for each request.

When the document sought has an identifi- able NTIS or ERIC retrieval number, that

publication will not be counted.

Completed user tickets could (and often did) in- dicate multiple uses for each user; such is an ac- ceptable component of the data collection process.The intent of the user ticket was to provide a data collection instrument that either library

staff or users themselves could complete simply

and quickly at a number of different library

service areas. Participation in the study called attention to government publications distributed through

the depository program. Undoubtedly, more li- brary staff members became aware of documents and promoted their use, at least for the

week of data collection. To the extent that this

phenonemon occurred, the study may have compensated for possible undercount of users.

In-House Materials User Log

The in-house materials user log (see Appendix

G) was administered at those library areas where depository publications were located but were not directly serviced by staff. For example,

a depository library may have a self-service

microfiche reading room or an open stacks area

in the documents department. Library staff administered the in-house materials user log in

such areas. However, some libraries might not

have such areas or might have an inadequate

number of staff to administer the log. Therefore,

it was expected that some libraries would not be

able to complete the in-house materials user log.

Following the written instructions (see Appendix B), documents librarians at each depository

library determined those library areas (if any)

to observe via the in-house materials user log.

The purpose of this data collection activity was

to include, as part of the overall count, those
30

users who simply borrowed materials or used

them without staff assistance.

During the data collection period,^ library

staff were asked to observe, on a regular schedule, the number of users consulting depository

publications, in non-staffed areas, not completing a user ticket. The investigators realize that,

in some cases, it may not have not been possible

to determine if users had previously completed

(or had completed for them) a user ticket. In those instances where staff members knew that

the user had previously completed a user ticket,

they were instructed not to count the user on

the in-house materials user log.

Rubin (1986) compared various methods to measure in-house materials use. In addition,

Output Measures for Public Libraries (Van

House et al., 1987) reported a process for collect- ing data on browsing and in-house use that has

been extensively reviewed and pretested. The

difference between that instrument and the one

used in this study is that our investigation ex- amined the number of users as opposed to the

types of uses made in the library. Thus, while our data collection process was based on work

done by both Rubin and Van House et al., some

minor modifications of their procedures and logs were necessary.

ADMINISTERING THE DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS

The success of data collection depended on the

extent of support that documents and other li- brary staff committed to the data collection

effort. During the spring and summer, 1988, the

Superintendent of Documents, through Administrative Notes, informed academic and public li- brary depositories that the data collection effort would occur that fall. The announcements

stressed the importance of the study to the GPO

and that for one week, completion of this survey

should be high priority.

Pretest

At the March 10, 1988, meeting of the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer, the

investigators discussed data collection instruments and received suggestions for revision of

the data collection forms. The audience at the

Council meeting also provided comments on the

data collection techniques that they had employed for the 1983 and 1985 Biennial Surveys.

The purpose of the discussion was to review ef- forts that would simplify data collection procedures, ensure the collection of data demonstrating reliability and validity, and determine the

length of time for which documents librarians

would be willing to collect data. The consensus was that data collection, if possible, should last seven days, rather than any shorter time period.

Data collection for a longer time period was con- sidered too much of an imposition on library

staff and might adversely affect data collection.

Staff might not have the time to monitor data

collection as carefully as they would like. In April 1988, members of the Advisory

Board, together with staff at the GPO, reviewed

the data collection instruments and the instructions. They also commented on the nature of

signage that the GPO should supply. Based

upon their comments, the instructions and data

collection instruments were revised. In mid-May, 1988, the investigators mailed

the revised instructions and data collection in- struments to six pretest sites: Kennesaw College

Library (Marietta, Georgia), Milwaukee Public

Library (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), Oklahoma

State University Library (Stillwater), St. Louis

Public Library (St. Louis, Missouri), University

of Utah Library (Salt Lake City), and University

of Nevada (Reno) Library.

At the six pretest sites, the staff reviewed the

instructions and conducted actual data collection. The purpose was to identify potential problems in the forms, regarding format and content. The staff were also asked to comment on

the ease of data collection and the level of participation and cooperation from users. The staff

^ The time frame is similar to that recommended in Van

House et al. (1987). As they observe, previous research has shown that a carefully selected time period, combined with

well constructed data collection instruments, can provide

adequate response to produce useful data for decision making (Ibid., pp. 1.5-16).
31

also considered problems that someone unfamiliar with the study might have in following the

instructions and completing the data collection

instruments.

By the middle of June, the investigators re- ceived the results of the pretest. The process

had gone smoothly and did not reveal any substantial problems with the instructions, depository library questionnaire, the user log, and

patron willingness to cooperate. Based on the

comments received, the user tickets were refor- matted and the occupational characterization of users of public library depository collections was

revised. Questions on the revised user tickets were clarified and made easier for users to check. The "Location" question was moved to the bottom of the form for staff members to pre- check.

The pretest also disclosed that all libraries

could not collect data the same week. The

school year for academic institutions operating on a quarter term might not begin until early

October. For this reason, the investigators en- couraged participating libraries to collect data

either from September 26 to October 2, or from

October 3 to October 9. However, under some

circumstances, data collection might occur during another week of October. The depository

library questionnaire asked for the number of

days that data collection occurred and the precise week of data collection.

On June 23, 1988, copies of the instructions,

data collection forms, and signage were mailed

to the GPO for printing and distribution to the

participating members of the depository library

program. A letter specifying "Printing Requirements and Schedule" accompanyed the packet.

Despite the extensive pretesting, the investigators and the Advisory Board recognize that

problems could occur in the administration of a

set of data collection forms to 1,054 libraries.

For this reason, depository librarians were en- couraged to call a member of the Advisory

Board, one of the investigators, or the GPO, if questions arose. ^

^ In fact, some 55 libraries did make such a telephone call.

Printing Requirements and Schedule

By July 15, the GPO supplied the investigators with typeset copy of:

• Instructions to Libraries: typeset on 8 ¥2 by

11 inch paper, printed front and back,

standard white paper, with GPO seal and

Depository Emblem affixed

• Depository Library Information Form: typeset on one front and back, 8 ¥2 by 11 inch

paper, on light yellow paper, with GPO seal

and Depository Emblem affixed

• User Log: typeset on lightweight 8 ¥2 by 5 Vz cardstock (so two can be printed at once on

each 8 ¥2 by 11 piece of paper) on light blue

paper

• User Ticket for Academic Libraries: typeset on lightweight 8 ¥2 by 11 inch cardstock (so

two can be printed at once on each 8^2 by

11 piece of paper) on light green paper,

with GPO seal and Depository Emblem af- fixed

• User Ticket for Public Libraries: typeset on

lightweight 8 ¥2 by 11 inch cardstock (so

two can be printed at once on each 8 ¥2 by

11 piece of paper) on light tan paper, with

GPO seal and Depository Emblem affixed

• Publicity Signs: (3 different signs) lettering on cardstock in 8V2 by 11 (or larger as appropriate), in dark bold letters, on light

background, with official seal of the GPO

and/or the depository library program

• Cover Letter: printed on GPO-Superintendent of Documents stationery.

By July 20th, the investigators had proofed the

drafts and supplied the GPO with their comments. They also supplied the GPO with mailing labels for the depository libraries separated

into two groups: academic and public libraries.

By August 12, the GPO had printed the fol- lowing:

• Cover Letters

• Instructions to Libraries Participating in

the User Study

• Depository Library Information Forms

• Count of In-house Users (User Log)

• Academic Library User Tickets

• Public Library User Tickets

• Publicity Signs (see Appendix H)
32

By August 26, the Superintendent of Documents had prepared a short announcement to appear in Administrative Notes informing aca- demic and public depository Hbraries that they

would be receiving the data collection instruments no later than the first of September.

At the same time, the GPO mailed, first class,

the packet of materials (the cover letter, the In- structions to Libraries Participating in the

Study, the Depository Library Information

Form, and the specified number of User Logs,

Academic and Public Library User Tickets, and

signage).^ Printed on the cover of the packet

mailed to depository libraries was the following:

ATTENTION DEPOSITORY LIBRARIAN: U.S.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE USER

STUDY ENCLOSED, OPEN IMMEDIATELY.

The purpose for mailing the packet in late

August was to ensure that the libraries received

the material in ample time to review the in- structions and prepare for data collection. If questions arose, they were instructed to contact

Mr. Mark Scully, Director of Library Programs

Service of the GPO, one of the investigators, or a member of the Advisory Board.

DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE

From Monday through Sunday (preferably

either September 26 to October 2, 1988; or October 3 to October 9, 1988), library staff members

were asked to monitor the specified service

points and complete the user tickets and in- house materials user log. For those libraries not

staffed on weekends, data collection occurred

Monday through Friday. The staff, however, were asked to leave a supply of user tickets in a prominent place so that users would be encour- aged to participate. It is likely that weekend

counts underestimated the number of users and

uses.

Ideally, all libraries should collect data during

the same week. However, it is impossible to predict local circumstances at more than 1,000 aca- demic and public libraries. Perhaps the school

term is just beginning, or some local programming, that would severely reduce the number of

people who might normally visit the library and

its depository collection, is taking place. Therefore, as an alternative, data collection could

take place during one of five possible weeks in

September or October, 1988. The Depository Li- brary Information Form requested whether the

staff collected data for 5 or 7 days, and for which week. In short, the data collection schedule was intended to be large enough to generate

meaningful data but not so large as to impose a hardship on library staff and users. QUALITY OF DATA

Efforts to Ensure Reliability and

Validity

Reliability seeks to determine the degree to which the data are consistent; consistency is the

extent to which the same results are produced

from different samples of the same population.

A number of steps were taken to increase the

likelihood of collecting reliable data.

First, the data collection instruments were developed in light of existing knowledge regarding

the conduct of user studies. The investigators

applied insights gained from the creation and

utilization of data collection instruments that

have been effective for similar studies in the

past. These instruments have focused on document uses, generally at one library (see Chapter

2).

* Because such a count had not been taken previously, it was impossible to estimate precisely the number of forms to

print. The GPO supplied each library with 300 copies of the

user ticket. If the libraries needed extra copies, they were

instructed to make photocopies.
33

Second, the data collection instruments were

carefully reviewed and pretested. A number of

individuals representing the GPO and practicing documents and other librarians critiqued

the data collection instruments. After each

review (at the Board meeting held at the Depository Library Council, the subsequent analysis

from Board members, and the formal pretest),

the documentation was revised, clarified, and

improved.

A second criterion of reliability is accurate

and consistent coding of data. The investigators

wrote (and pretested) instructions that guided

actual data collection (see Appendix B). Before

data were coded and entered into a machinereadable format, the investigators adhered to written check-in and stamping procedures (see

Appendix I). The investigators reviewed each

completed form and inserted coding instructions, as necessary. In cases where data were

ambiguous, they followed written decision rules

in order to ensure consistent coding and entry

of the data. Each completed user ticket was

stamped with a unique accession number to fa- cilitate verification. The investigators subcontracted with Testing Services, Syracuse University for data entry and verification, tape transfer, and programming.

After the data were entered on tape, Testing

Services, as well as the investigators, ran reli- ability programs to identify erroneous entries, or entries that fell outside a typical range of re- sponses. Of the some 54,000 user tickets re- viewed, only 27 such erroneous entries were

identified. These user tickets were eliminated

from the database.

Validity is an assessment of the extent to which data collection procedures actually measure what the investigators intended to measure.

Validity can never be established beyond a shadow of a doubt, but investigators can develop

criteria that comprise indicators of data validity.A first criterion is one of face validity. This

criterion simply asks that people knowledgeable

about the topic concur that data collection accurately measures the variables under consideration. In this particular instance, key terms

have been defined and reviewed by GPO offi- cials and practicing librarians. They have also

reviewed the data collection procedures. Further, the data elements used in this study are

typical of data elements included in other user

studies.

Another validity criterion are the constructs used to measure key variables. This study draws

upon work done by a number of researchers

(summarized in Chapter 2) to measure "users"

and selected characteristics of users. In addition, Rubin (1986) and Van House et al. (1987)

have investigated the measurement of in-house

materials use. Drawing upon their work repre- sents an effort to increase the validity of the

measurement used in this study.

External validity is the degree to which the

results can be generalized from a sample to the

entire population. A key indicator of external

validity is the degree to which the responding

depository libraries represented the entire population of academic and public depositories. The

next chapter describes the extent of library participation; compares responding to non-responding libraries on selected, key variables; and

summarizes the results. Since the total user population is unknown, the study attempted to collect data based on the population of academic

and public depository libraries. Because the re- sponse rate was 80 percent and because the

characteristics of responding libraries closely

matched the population of academic and public

depository libraries (see the next chapter), the

data likely have external validity.

The selection of a seven-day period for count- ing users of depository library publications af- fects both the reliability and the validity of the

data. Previous research suggests that such

"normal" periods or weeks are best established

in library environments in the fall or spring. Allowing participating libraries to select the week

for data collection increases the likelihood that

they will choose a representative time period.

Finally, both the reliability and validity of the

data collection process should be increased by

encouraging participating libraries to call one of

the investigators or a member of the Advisory

Board with any questions they might have.

Should a contingency have arisen for which

there were no clear guidelines, the participating

librarians could obtain guidance consistent with
34

the suggestions and guidelines being offered

other participants. And, in fact, some librarians

did call one of the investigators or a member of

the Advisory Board.

Possible Sources of Error

Despite the best efforts of the investigators,

the Advisory Board, and participating librarians, possible error may have entered the data.

Figure 3-4 summarizes the sources of these possible errors and serves as a reminder that in

any large-scale study collecting self-reporting

data, such as this study did, some degree of error will result. The most significant impact of

the error will be an undercount of depository

users. That undercount could result due to fac- tors such as patron non-compliance, staff noncompliance, staff shortages, staff too busy, in- ability to identify documents users, and the in- tegration of depository holdings with the general collection.

As discussed throughout this chapter, the in- vestigators took a number of specific steps to minimize the impact of these possible sources of

error, e.g., pretesting the data collection process

and distributing printed instructions for administering the data collection instruments. It is in- teresting to compare Figure 3-4 to Figure 3-5,

which summarizes actual concerns and com- ments regarding the data collection process submitted by the librarians participating in the

study. These comments, which were solicited on

the library information form (see Appendix C), were analyzed and summarized in Figure 3-5.

Figure 3-4.—Anticipated Sources of Error

Figure 3-4.—Anticipated Sources of ErrorContinued

Factor Explanation

Written instructions. Library staff might not adhere to them or consider them too long and complex. Staff might begin data collection at other than a

specified time. Local circum- stances might necessitate judg- ment calls and procedural alter- natives, but these might not be

reported on the depository li- brary information form. Despite

the instructions, some libraries might tally user tickets on the user log, rather than to use the

log to count in-house users.

Factor Explanation

Misperceptions about the Some library staff members

purpose of the study.

Administration ments.of instruFailure of staff to partici- pate.

Perceptions of documents

and a depository Item.

might mistakenly believe that

this study carried a hidden agenda and could be "detri- mental" to the depository pro- gram. Some libraries may be more

conscientious than others in conducting the study. Some

staff members might record any

use of a depository department

as part of the study. For example, they might include students

studying there or visiting the area as part of a library tour. Some staff members might be

reluctant to participate in the

survey. They might fail to dis- tribute tickets to users. Librar- ians might not get in the habit

of recording use throughout the week.

Not all library patrons may be

familiar with the expression "document." Some of the most

heavily used items (e.g.. Statistical Abstract and Library of Congress Subject i-leadings) might not be associated with the depository program. Some staff members might not

feel justified in handing out a

user ticket after an unsuccessful reference experience.

It may be difficult to ensure that some users were not counted

twice: once with the user ticket and again with the user log.

Circulation may take place in another department, and staff here might experience problems

in identification of a title as a depository item. Dispersion of documents holdings throughout a library complicates data col- lection and increases opportunities for undercounts.

Patron reluctance to partici- Patrons might be reluctant to pate. participate for various reasons.

Reference service.

Duplication of users.

Difficulty in monitoring circulation and other depart- ments.
35

Figure 3-4.—Anticipated Sources of ErrorContinued

Figure 3-5.—Summary of Librarian

Comments—Continued

Factor Explanation General reactions Specific comments

Staffing.

Observation of users.

integrated collections.

As already noted, not all staff might be supportive of the study and want to be diverted from other activities. Completion of the user log could be a burden during busy times and where there are staff shortages.

The busiest times might go un- recorded.

Staff members may resent having to observe what patrons

are using in order to determine

if these people comprise docu- ments users. Where documents are integrat- ed, it is difficult to monitor use. There is more of a burden on

staff to observe patron information-gathering behavior.

Figure 3-5.—Summary of Librarian Comments

General reactions Specific comments

The survey was difficult to administer.

Staff could not devote suffi- cient time or attention to data

collection.

The survey was intrusive or inappropriate at times.

Could not monitor documents

use when the collection was

partially or completely inte- grated or when two institutions shared the documents collection; difficult to monitor circulation or interlibrary loan in- volving documents; difficult to ensure patrons who complet- ed user tickets were not also counted on in-house log; and

difficult to determine what materials were used in-house.

Staff were too busy to ensure

that all transactions were rep- resented by user tickets or to do the hourly in-house count;

staff forgot to record some

commonly used reference

titles; some staff were uncooperative; too many staff members were involved in the survey process to ensure uni- formity or accuracy; and diffi- culty in remembehng to record telephone use of documents

held in the reference collection.

Staff did not like to "spy on"

users while they studied; and

questions about occupation and education were intrusive.

Survey results underrepresent use of the documents collection.

The survey was threatening.

The survey week was too

early in the academic term;

potential users were distracted by unusual events in the community or kept away by ren- ovation or other problems with the library's facilities; users

deliberately avoided the de- partment due to the survey; and it was inappropriate to hand out a user ticket after an

unsuccessful reference experi- ence.

Survey results might be used

to reduce or eliminate the depository library program or have some bearing on a li- brary's depository status.

Many of the anticipated sources of error listed

in Figure 3-4 were also identified by the participating librarians. The librarians frequently

commented that, for a host of reasons, they may

not have been able to distribute tickets to all users of depository publications and that they were not always able to administer the user log as frequently as instructed. Although a few li- brarians believed the week they had chosen to conduct the study resulted in a "low" number of

users, it is equally likely that some libraries had

a "high" number of users for the week selected.

The comments from the librarians support the

belief that the data reported in the next chapter

represent an undercount of actual users. Given that some error will inevitably "sneak

in" to any study, it is important that the investigators:

• Explain clearly how the data were collect- ed, how key terms were defined, and what

procedures were used in the data collection

process

• Detail the steps taken to increase the reli- ability of the data and the validity of the

findings

• Identify factors that may have introduced

error into the study
36

• Caution readers that the data must be un- derstood and interpreted within various

constraints. In one sense, the research process confronts a broad range of trade-offs in which the investigators were constantly forced to decide the "best"

data collection activities and techniques in light

of numerous possible constraints. Given these

constraints, the investigators made every effort to reduce error and increase the likelihood of

collecting quality data for this study.

SUMMARY

The research design and methodology described in this chapter address the study's re- search questions within the context of specified

objectives (see Chapter 1) and certain limitations and assumptions related to conducting a national user study. Unique factors related to the organization and administration of individual depository libraries contribute to the diffi- culty in conducting such a study. These factors

underscore that this investigation yields management data and deals primarily with a fundamental question "Who uses depository collec- tions and services?"

A study such as this one is extremely complex

given the necessity of dealing with so many li- braries, their local circumstances and willing- ness to participate in data collection. Both the

investigators and members of the Advisory

Board recognize the constraints that affect data

collection and the concerns expressed in the

pertinent literature on documents use (see

Chapter 2). A number of techniques have been incorporated into the design to increase the likelihood of

collecting valid and reliable data. Nonetheless, a number of sources of error can affect the completion of a national study directed at more

than 1,000 libraries. Subsequent investigations can refine the steps involved in completing the

study. Every effort has been made to keep the

data collection instruments and the data collection process as easy, straightforward, and short

in duration as possible. In summary, the data collection forms and

the accompanying instructions were extensively

reviewed. The pretest sites found that academic

and public depository libraries should be able to complete data collection in a straightforward

and consistent manner. The libraries had some

latitude in the selection of a week they believed

to be the most typical of depository library use. The study examines users, regardless of

whether they asked the question in-person or by

telephone or mail. However, it bears repeating

that the study concentrated only on academic

and public depository libraries. It does not ex- amine other participants in the depository pro- gram (see Chapter 1). Furthermore, it was not

feasible, in this study, to address the question

"What percentage of the people who use aca- demic and public libraries use GPO depository

library holdings?" The instructions reprinted as Appendix B include other qualifications on the

data collection process. Still, it is important to remember that this study represents a first effort to collect reliable and valid data about

who uses academic and public depository library

holdings. At the same time, the study focuses

national attention on the importance of the depository library program and knowing who uses depository collections. Additional research could

build from this modest beginning and accomplish more ambitious objectives.

REFERENCES

American Library Directory, 1986-1987 (New York:

Bowker, 1987). Congress. Joint Committee on Printing. A Directory

of U.S. Government Depository Libraries: March

1987 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1987).

Hernon, Peter, Charles R. McClure, and Gary R. Purcell. GPO's Depository Library Program (Norwood,

NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1985). Rubin, Richard. In-House Use of Materials in Public

Libraries. (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Grad-
37

uate School of Library and Information Science,

1986). Slonim, Morris J. Sampling (New York: Simon and

Schuster, 1960).

Van House, Nancy, Mary Jo Lynch, Charles R. McClure, Douglas L. Zweizig, and Eleanor Jo

Rodger. Output Measures for Public Libraries,

second edition (Chicago: American Library Association, 1987).

Chapter 4

Study Results

This chapter presents data to answer the two

research questions:

• What is the estimated number of users of

academic and public depository pubUcations for a specified time period?

• What are selected characteristics of these users in terms of gender, educational level,

occupation (for public library users) and

academic status (for academic library

users)?

This chapter presents only the findings that specifically address these questions. The GPO did

not request the investigators to either integrate

study findings with the larger literature or spec- ulate about their meaning and implications.

It should also be stressed that, throughout the

chapter, "users" means users of GPO depository

materials in academic and public depository li- braries only. The following count and description do not characterize users of all U.S. government publications and libraries, depository and

nondepository.

In addition, the count and description of users are given without regard to the mission, goals,

and objectives of either individual libraries or the depository library program as a whole. Most

likely, some libraries place higher priority on

depository materials and user services than

others and some libraries better attempt to meet GPO depository library guidelines. Be- cause of such priorities, individual libraries

may report user counts and user characteristics

in a somewhat different form than the aggregate data presented in this chapter.

HANDLING OF THE DATA

Research assistants checked all returned

survey materials. This process included listing

in a log the date of receipt of the survey materials, the library depository identification (ID)

number, and the number and type of survey in- struments returned. The assistants inspected

each survey instrument to ensure clarity and

understandability for data entry. They also

stamped each user ticket with a unique acces- sion number.

After the assistants logged and inspected data

collection instruments, the data were entered

into machine-readable format: two datafiles.

The first contained data from the user tickets,

and the second file contained data from the depository library information form and the summaries from the user log (log of in-house library

users). The investigators analyzed the machinereadable data by use of the SAS statistical analysis program for mainframe computers.

The investigators took appropriate steps to ensure the reliability and validity of the data.

The previous chapter details these various activities. In addition, a computer program

checked the files for reliable data entry, and the

data were shown to be correctly entered with

virtually no errors. Because participating libraries collected data

over five different one-week periods, the data were analyzed to determine if there were sys- tematic differences in the composition of re- spondents participating in data collection

during different time periods. The investigators

performed a chi-square statistical test on gender

of respondents by week, as well as the educational level of respondents by week. No significant differences emerged at the .05 level. Thus,

the characteristics of users remained constant

regardless of the week in which depository li- braries administered the survey instruments.

RESPONSE RATE

Based on a review of the libraries listed in A ies: March 1987 (Congress. Joint Committee on

Directory of U.S. Government Depository Librar- Printing, 1987), the investigators identified 770

39
40

academic and 284 public libraries as holding depository status. The GPO sent survey packets to each of these 1,054 libraries. For the academic

depository libraries, 620 of the 770 completed

and returned the surveys (81% response); and

for the public libraries, 227 of 284 completed

and returned the surveys (80% response). Therefore, 847 (80%) of the 1,054 libraries participated in the study. It should be noted, however,

that a few of the responding libraries did not

administer the user logs as part of their survey.

As discussed in Chapter 3 under "User Population," the investigators constructed a database

of selected characteristics of academic and

public depository libraries. One purpose of this

database was to provide a means to compare re- sponding to non-responding libraries. Table 4-1

compares all libraries, respondents and non-re- spondents in terms of "population." For aca- demic libraries, this variable was defined as

total student enrollment. For public libraries,

the variable was defined as population of the

community in which the library was located.

The American Library Directory (1987) was the

source for these data.

Table 4-1.—Analysis of Respondents and

Nonrespondents

[In percentages]

A|i Respond- Nonresponents dents

Academic Libraries (N = 770); Low enrollment (less than 2,500) 36 31 55 Moderate enrollment

(2,500 to 8,500) 33 34 29

Table 4-1.—Analysis of Respondents and

Nonrespondents—Continued

[In percentages]

Respond- Nonresponents dents

High enrollment (great- er than 8,500) 31 35 16

Public Libraries (N=284): Low community size

(less than 73,000) 33 32 37

Moderate community

size (73,000 to 230,000) 32 33 26

High community size (greater than 230,000) 35 35 37

As shown in Table 4-1, academic library re- spondents closely matched or represented the

total population in terms of student enrollment.

However, a greater percentage of libraries with

low student enrollment comprised non-respondents than respondents. Further, a smaller per- centage of libraries with high enrollment was

non-respondents (as opposed to respondents).

For public libraries (see Table 4-1), the re- spondents almost perfectly matched the total

population in terms of community size. However, there were slightly fewer public library non- respondents in the moderate category than

there were for the respondents. By reviewing

each column in Table 4-1, it can be said that

the respondents for both academic and public li- braries were representative of the population of

academic and public depository libraries. Nonetheless, there were some differences between re- spondents and non-respondents.
41

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF USERS PER WEEK

The number of users was computed by total- ing the user tickets, less the tickets of "repeat

users," adding the number of users identified

from the user log (log of in-house library users),

and adding to this total the estimate of both

user tickets and user logs for the non-responding libraries. Table 4-2 summarizes the number

of users for both academic and public libraries.

Table 4-2.—Total Academic and Public

Depository Library Users Per Week

Respondents Estimate for Nonrespondents

User

tick- ets*

Log

count Usertick- ets*

Log

count

Total

Academic

libraries 40,469 71,533 7,134 19,032 138,168

Public

libraries 10,202 12,639 2,540 4,200 29, 581

Total 50,671 84,172 9,674 23,232 167,749

* Does not include repeat users.

The estimate of the number of users for non- responding libraries was computed as follows.

Responding academic and public libraries were

categorized as low, moderate, or high based on

student enrollment (for academic libraries) and

community size (for public libraries). Within

each category, for both user tickets and the user

logs, an average number of users was computed.

This average number of users within each cate- gory was multiplied by the number of non-re- sponding academic or public libraries that was

identified as falling into the same category. Be- cause a number of libraries that returned user

tickets did not return user logs, the investigators estimated the number of in-house users for

libraries not providing this information.

For example, if the average number of user

tickets from responding academic libraries with

low student enrollment was 50 and there were

70 non-respondent academic libraries categorized as low enrollment, then a total of 3,500 users was estimated for that particular category

of academic libraries. Because of the differences

between respondents and non-respondents (see

Table 4-1), this method of estimation is more

valid than simply multiplying the average

number of users per library by the number of

non-responding libraries. Caution is needed in interpreting the results

shown in Table 4-2. Many of the respondents

noted that it was impossible for them to count

all users for a variety of reasons. They com- mented that, for example:

• Because of multiple service points for vari- ous types of government publications all users may not have completed the user

ticket

• All users could not be easily identified in li- braries where government documents were

integrated throughout the collection

• They were unable to administer the user

log count for all the required hours or even

entire days during the survey week due to inadequate staffing levels. For these and related reasons (see Chapter 3), the data may undercount the number of actual users by at least 10 percent and perhaps as much as 15 percent despite the fact that user

log counts may include repeat users. ^ Further,

it should be recognized that data reported in

Table 4-2 do not include "pass alongs" i.e., when there are multiple users of a particular

government publication.

Table 4-3 describes the average number of users by geographic region in the continental

United States. The number of users is based on

data from user tickets and the user log from re- sponding libraries only, i.e., does not include the

estimate of non-respondent libraries. It is interesting to note that the average number of users per week ranged from a high of 243 for academic libraries in the Pacific region, to a low of 68

users per week for public libraries in the Mountain region. These estimates of weekly users are

not standardized in terms of the number of po- tential users for each region.

' This estimate is based primarily on comments received from participating depository libraries.
42

Table 4-3.—Average Number of Users Per

Week by Census Region*

Table 4-3.—Average Number of Users Per

Week by Census Region*—Continued

Aca- demic

librar- ies

Public

librar- ies

Pacific (WA, OR, & CA) 243 127

Mountain (ID, MT, WY, CO, UT, NV, AZ, &

NM) 220 68 West North Central (ND, SD, MN, NE, KN, MO, & lA) 196 91 East North Central (Wl, Ml, IL, IN, & OH) 153 106 West South Central (OK, AK, LA, & TX) 160 161

Aca- demic

librar- ies

Public

librar- ies

East South Central (KY, TN, MS, & AL) 1 72 85

South Atlantic (WV, MD, DE, DC, VA, NC,

SC, GA, & FL) 192 94

Middle Atlantic (NY, PA, & NJ) 1 71 85 New England (ME, NH, Rl, VT, MA, & CT) .... 143 84

* Figure 3-2 shows a map depicting these geographic re- gions.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF USERS

Demographic data describing the users were

collected from the user tickets. No demographic

information could be obtained from the user log

(in-house materials use log). Thus, the demographic characteristics provided in this section are based solely on the data from the user tickets. Furthermore, the demographic characteristics of users described in this section do not in- clude repeat users. Analysis focused on the first- time a person completed a user ticket; the

second and successive user tickets completed by

one person were not included in the total user count as they would skew the analysis of demographic characteristics. Some 3,945 user tickets

of the total of 54,621 (7%) were identified as "repeat users" (returning for a second or successive time during the one-week data collection

period).

Gender of Users

Table 4-4 describes the gender of users of aca- demic and public library depository publications. Males constituted 52 percent of academic

library users and 53 percent of public library

users. Females constituted 48 percent of aca- demic library users and 47 percent of public li- brary users. The percentages of users by gender

do not vary significantly between academic and

public libraries.

Table 4-4.—Gender of Users

Aca- demic

librar- ies

Public

librar- ies Total

Male

20,707

5,197 25,904

(52%) (53%)

Female 18,934 4,631 23,565

(48%) (47%)

Total respondents 39,641 9,828 49,469

Education of Users

Table 4-5 describes the educational composition of users of academic and public library depository materials. Users who described themselves as having a college education and graduate training (the combination of the college and

post-bachelor categories) accounted for 93 per- cent of academic library users and 80 percent of

public library users. In general, Table 4-5 sug- gests that users of academic and public library

depository material are highly educated.

Status of Users

Table 4-6 describes the status of academic li- brary users. Students constituted the largest

percentage of users—some 77 percent. In a dis- tant second place were local community members who comprised 9 percent of total users, fol- lowed by faculty who comprised 8 percent of the

users. While one might expect a high percentage of student users in academic libraries it
43

Table 4-5.—Education of Users

Aca- demic

librar- ies

Public

librar- ies

Jr. High School 188

(.5%) High School 2,498

(6.3%)

College 29,506

(75%)

Post-Bachelor 7,152

(18%)

Total respondents 39,344

Total

219 407

(2%)

1,576 4,074

(17%)

5,343 34,849

(59%)

1,898 9,050

(21%)

9,036 48,380

Table 4-7.—Status of Public Library Users

Num- Per- ber centage

Homemaker 476

Manager 953

Laborer 311

Production 163

Professional 2,905

Technical 1,116

Retired 431 Student 2,105

Unemployed 273

Other 400

Total respondents 9,133

510

3232

12

5 23

3

4

may be surprising that such a low percentage of users described themselves as faculty. However,

it should be remembered that faculty may have

student assistants and/or office staff who act as surrogates for them in the use of the library.

Table 4-6.—Status of Academic Library Users

NumberPer- centage

77

8

3

9

3

Student 30,598

Faculty 3,018

College/unviversity staff 1,369 Community member 3,485 Other 1,366

Total respondents 39,836

In public libraries, status was described in

terms of occupation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses these occupational categories with some minor exceptions. Appendix F provides

definitions of these categories. The largest per- centage of users described themselves as professionals, while students were the next largest

group. Together, these two groups accounted for more than half of the respondents (see Table 4-

7). Interestingly, over 40 percent of the public li- brary users described their occupation as managerial or professional.

Data also were collected to describe where

users contacted depository library materials.

Table 4-8 summarizes the percentage of users

at specific service points by type of library. This

table suggests that the central reference area, the documents department (if separated collections), or a combined central reference and documents service point accounted for 75 percent of

the locations for user contact with depository

materials. Interestingly, relatively little contact

occurred in a maps or microforms area.

Table 4-8.—Percentage of Users at Specific

Service Points by Type of Library

[In percentages]

Aca- demic Public

Central reference 18 28 Documents department 55 26 Combined reference/documents area 9 21 Maps 4 1 MicroForms 1 2

Circulation 6 3

Interlibrary loan 1 1 Subject division or department 2 14 Other 4 4

RELATING THESE FINDINGS TO OTHER STUDIES

It is not the intent of this chapter or report to analyze study findings, discuss their implications, or relate the findings to other studies or

broad issues related to users of the depository li- brary program. Readers who wish to consider
44

the findings in a broader context might consider

the following recent titles as a starting point:

• Congress. Office of Technology Assessment.

Informing the Nation: Federal Information

Dissemination in an Electronic Age. Washington, DC: GPO, 1988

• General Accounting Office. Federal Information: Agency Needs and Practices [GAO/

GGD-88-115FS]. Washington, DC: General

Accounting Office, September, 1988

• General Accounting Office. Federal Information Users' Current and Future Technology Needs [GAO/GGD-89-20FS]. WashingIMPORTANCE

The data reported in this chapter represent a snapshot estimating the number and description

of academic and public depository library users during the Fall of 1988. As such, these findings

represent the first and only user information

derived from a carefully conducted national

survey describing users of academic and public

depository libraries.

While a snapshot provides useful information,

trend data describing the number of users over time have greater utility. If the GPO wishes to obtain trend data, additional data collection in

the future will be necessary. The GPO may wish

to consider a number of options to obtain such

data:

• Biennial Survey: it may be possible to develop procedures, based on those employed

in this study, to obtain the necessary data

as part of the regularly administered Biennial Survey of depository libraries

• Separate Survey: similar to the study described in this report, a separate survey

ton, DC: General Accounting Office, November, 1988

• Hernon, Peter, and Charles R. McClure.

Public Access to Government Information:

Issues, Trends, and Strategies. Second edition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1988

• Hernon, Peter, Charles R. McClure, and

Gary R. Purcell. GPO's Depository Library

Program: A Descriptive Analysis. Norwood,

NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1985.

Other useful sources may be found among the

references in Chapter 2. OF TREND DATA

might be done; procedures used for the

study reported here could be revised and

refined

• Case Site Study: instead of a national

survey, a case site analysis of a carefully

selected sample of depository libraries

could be done; such an approach might

produce more reliable data than a national

survey.

A determination of the best option ought to be

based upon (minimally) the following factors:

• The quality and type of data needed

• The amount of resources available to support the data collection activity

• The level of effort required by participating

depository libraries.

However, for purposes of long-range planning

and demonstrating the accountability of the depository library program, trend data describing

users, nonusers, and uses, in all types of depository libraries, are needed.

SUMMARY

The results from this user survey estimate a minimum of 167,000 users of government, depository material in academic and public libraries

per week. There is much greater in-house materials use in academic libraries than in public li- braries. The average number of users per week

ranges from 143 to 243 for academic libraries,

and 68 to 161 in public libraries, depending on

the geographic region. Males and females are about evenly split as users of government publications in both academic and public libraries.

Users tend to be highly educated and can be

characterized primarily as students and in professional or managerial occupations.
45

As repeatedly emphasized, these data, as well

as any data gathered from a self-administered

survey, should be interpreted with caution. The

investigators took a number of precautions to increase the reliability of the data and to produce valid findings. Interpretations of the

data should be made in light of these precautions and by considering the limitations of the

study described in Chapter 3. However, at the

aggregate level of analysis and in light of the

excellent response rate, these findings provide

an excellent "first shot" at determining the

number of users, and their characteristics, of

academic and public library depository government material.

REFERENCES

American Library Directory (New York: Bowker,

1987). Congress. Joint Committee on Printing. A Directory

of U.S. Government Depository Libraries: March

(Washington, DC: GPO, 1987).

Appendix A

Explanation of Data Collection in 1983

Biennial Survey*

STATISTICAL COLLECTIONS FOR BIENNIAL REPORT UPDATE

In September 1983, GPO will send out the

1983 Biennial Survey questionnaire. The purpose of the Biennial Report is to fulfill the re- quirements of 44 use Section 1901: "The designated depository libraries will report to the Superintendent of Documents at least every 2 years concerning their condition." The results of

the Biennial Report have a twofold purpose: to provide GPO with a picture of conditions in depositories and to provide depositories with

meaningful statistics which will enable them to draw conclusions about services in their libraries.The 1983 Biennial Survey will contain a sec- tion of statistics which will be repeated on later

surveys so that GPO and depository libraries

will have a sense of change over time.

It will be necessary to collect some information prior to receiving the survey in September.

Please follow the instructions for collecting

data. The results will only be valid if everyone

uses the same sampling schedule for collecting

data.

WEEK ONE

WEEK TWO

WEEK THREE

WEEK FOUR

WEEK FIVE

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Please add all five days' results together

when answering Biennial Survey questions. A

form is attached to facilitate data collection.

You will need to make five copies of the form to use for each day of the survey. The list of topics

addressed is not complete but will help us in de- termining a depository library profile.

DRAFT WORKSHEET

THIS IS A WORKSHEET FOR COLLECTING

DATA. MAKE FIVE COPIES OF THIS FORM

TO USE FOR THE FIVE DAYS OF THE

SURVEY.

No. of users in the documents dept. (For separate documents departments only)

ALL DEPOSITORIES: ALL QUESTIONS

RELATE TO DOCUMENTS

No. of directional questions (EX. Where is the

U.S Code?)

No. of reference/research questions

No. of database reference searches

No. of referrals

No. of items not available for use for which li- brary staff searches stacks and other locations

No. of interlibrary loan requests sent out

No. of interlibrary loan requests filled No. of hours spent on tours, bibliographic in- struction, presentations, publications, exhibits or other publicity for documents

The following information for the Biennial

Report does not require sampling. You will need

to collect the following information over a 1 month period.

*This Appendix item is reprinted from Administrative

Notes [Office of the Superintendent of Documents], 4 (June

1983): 2, 4-6; 4 (July 1983): 2; and 4 (August 1983): 4-8.

47
48

RECEIPTS: Regionals and full depositories do

not need to collect this information.

Number of depository print pieces (excluding

legislative documents (classes X and Y)

Number of bills and legislative documents

(classes X and y)

Number of microfiche (excluding X and Y)

Number of maps

ACQUISITIONS: All depositories

Number of claims ordered

Number of items purchased from GPO Sales

Number of items received from other depository

programs, e.g., NRC, NASA, NLM

Number of items offered on exchange lists Number of items sent to other libraries from ex- change lists Number of items disposed of - RECORD MAINTENANCE

Number of print pieces (excluding legislative

documents) cataloged

Number of print pieces (excluding legislative

documents) included on a shelflist, serial

check-in or other locator file

Number of microfiche (excluding legislative documents) cataloged

Number of microfiche (excluding legislative documents) included on a shelflist, serial check-in

or other locator file STAFFING: This pertains to documents only

Number of professional staff (FTE)

Number of clerical and support staff (FTE)

Number of volunteers (FTE)

EQUIPMENT

Seating capacity for users of documents

Number of microfiche readers

Number of microfiche reader/printers

Number of computer terminals available to users and staff Number of copiers staffed and unstaffed provided on library premises for users

Fiche-to-Fiche Duplicator capability

1983 BIENNIAL REPORT ADJUSTMENT

We've received many calls and letters about

the timing of the 1983 Biennial Report. The

major complaint was that many public and aca- demic libraries' circulation and use statistics

drop off in summer months. As requested, the

collection of statistics required for the 1983 Biennial report is now scheduled to take place in

September.

Statistics on receipts, acquisitions, and record

maintenance should be kept for September 1-30,

1983.

Statistics on patron use and reference assist- ance should follow the schedule below:

Monday

Tuesday

August 29, 1983

September 6, 1983

Wednesday September 14, 1983

Thursday September 22, 1983

Friday September 30, 1983

If your library is closed during a period when

the survey schedule is in effect, use your judgment and survey for the same period of time

when the library is open.

We realize that the schedule will still be in- convenient for some libraries but there is no

period in the year which will be ideal for everyone.A copy of the 1983 Biennial Report will be

mailed to your library in October. As usual,

there will be 6 weeks to answer the questionnaire.
49

DEFINITIONS TO BE USED FOR THE 1983 BIENNIAL SURVEY

The staff at the Library Division appreciates

the many helpful comments and suggestions re- ceived about the collection of data for the 1983

Biennial Report. Here are some general com- ments and definitions which should clarify most

of the problems.

Sampling Schedule

The sampling schedule for use and circulation

statistics should reflect one week's use of the

collection. As in many libraries collecting circulation statistics, the sampling days are spread

out over a 5-week period. If your depository has

Saturday and Sunday hours, add the weekend

hours into Friday's statistics as we are trying to collect data for one week's use.

Federal Documents

The survey is only to reflect the use of Federal Government documents, not state, local, or international documents.

Number of Users in the Documents Department

Only libraries with separate documents departments need to answer this question. As li- brary users come into the department or call,

count them.

Database Reference Searches

Count searches on databases such as OCLC or

Biological Abstracts when the results yield document titles. Do not include OCLC searches

when a cataloger is cataloging a document.

Referrals

The term referral pertains to referral to other

libraries, state agencies, bookstores, and other

institutions outside the library. Having other

staff members help answer reference questions

doesn't constitute a referral.

Items Not Available for Use for Which the Staff

Searches Stacks and Other Locations

Count only items that are included in the li- brary's holdings but are missing, at the bindery,

or circulating. Do not include items the library

does not own.

Receipts

Exclude the line in which we requested a count of the Number of Bills and Legislative

Documents (Classes X and Y). GPO is able to track this information and it was included

under the receipts category in error. Receipts are counted excluding legislative documents so that the number of items received can be corre- lated with items cataloged or shelflisted. (A defi- nition of cataloging is included later in this article). With regard to the number of microfiche,

count titles, not pieces, and do not count legislative microfiche or print titles. You should be

able to get your counts from shipping lists.

Acquisitions

Number of claims refers to claims submitted

to the Library Programs Service.

With regard to items purchased from GPO

Sales, count each subscription as one item and

count items ordered, not items ordered and re- ceived.

Do not count superseded items as a part of

the number of items disposed of. Do count items

that were included in discard lists not selected

by other libraries and approved for discarding.

Record Maintenance

For print pieces and microfiche cataloging

statistics, include items for which a cataloged

entry is included in a public catalog. A cata- loged item will usually have more than one

entry. If a series or serial title has previously

been included in the public catalog, you may in- clude that issue in the cataloging statistics. When counting microfiche shelflisted or cataloged, count titles, not individual fiche.

Staffing

Include the number of hours non-documents

librarians and support staff work with documents. (Ex., hours spent by catalogers and

shelvers.)

Include student aide time with clerical and

support staff.
50

Equipment

Equipment refers to equipment accessible to documents staff and users.

If there are several OCLC terminals in the li- brary, count OCLC only once.

Directional Questions

Questions that can be answered without using

any reference sources other than schedules of

staff, floor plans, handbooks or policy state- ments. Examples of this type of question include

giving directions for locating departments

within the library, current periodicals, etc.

REVISED WORKSHEET

THIS IS A WORKSHEET FOR COLLECTING

DATA. MAKE FIVE COPIES OF THIS FORM

TO USE FOR THE FIVE DAYS OF THE

SURVEY.

No. of Library patrons in the documents dept.

(For separate documents departments only.)

ALL DEPOSITORIES: ALL QUESTIONS

RELATE TO DOCUMENTS

No. of directional questions

No. of reference/ research questions

No. of database reference searches

No. of referrals

No. of items not available for use for which li- brary staff searches stacks and other locations

No. of interlibrary loan requests sent out

No. of interlibrary loan requests filled No. of hours spent on tours, bibliographic in- struction, presentations, publications, exhibits or other publicity for documents

NON-SAMPLING

The following information for the Biennial

Report does not require sampling. You will need

to collect the following information during September.

RECEIPTS (Regionals and full depositories do

not need to collect this information.)

Number of depository print pieces (Excluding

legislative documents, Classes X and Y)

Number of microfiche titles (Excluding classes

XandY)

Number of maps

ACQUISITIONS (All depositories)

Number of claims submitted to Library Programs Service

Number of titles purchased from GPO Sales

Number of titles offered on exchange lists Number of items sent to other libraries from ex- change lists

INFORMATION

Number of items disposed of

RECORD MAINTENANCE

Number of print pieces cataloged (Excluding

legislative documents)

Number of print pieces included in a shelflist,

serial check-in or other locator file (Excluding

legislative documents)

Number of microfiche cataloged (Excluding legislative documents)

Number of microfiche titles included in a shelflist, serial check-in or other locator file (Excluding legislative documents)

Number of microfiche titles for which no record

is kept (Excluding legislative documents)

STAFFING: This pertains to staff working with

Federal documents only

Number of professional staff (FTE)
51

Number of clerical, support staff and student

aides (FTE)

Number of volunteers (FTE)

EQUIPMENT

Seating capacity for users of documents

Number of microfiche readers

Number of microfiche reader/ printers

Number of computer terminals available to users and staff Number of copiers staffed and unstaffed provided on library premises for users

Fiche-to-Fiche Duplicator capability

Appendix B

Instructions to Libraries Participating in

the User Study of Academic and Public

Depository Libraries

BACKGROUND

The Government Printing Office has contract- ed for a study to determine the number and

types of users of academic and pubhc depository

libraries. That study is being conducted by

Charles R. McClure of Syracuse University and

Peter Hernon of Simmons College.

For the study to be successful, it is essential

that each depository library participate. The Superintendent of Documents, Mr. Donald E. Fossedal, previously has communicated with you,

through Administrative Notes, about the importance of the study. The material contained in

this packet provides information and the data

collection instruments needed to participate in

the study.

VALUE OF YOUR COOPERATION

Without information on users, it is exceedingly difficult to engage in long-range planning for the depository library program and to review

program goals. Descriptive information will

assist the GPO in better understanding who

uses depository collections and in conveying this

information to Members of Congress and to other interested parties.

USER AND USE STUDIES

User studies identify who uses libraries, the

characteristics of these individuals, and their

frequency of library use. In contrast, use studies

probe information-gathering behavior and ex- amine barriers to information gathering. Use

studies may investigate nonusers as well as li- brary users. Use studies depict the reasons for use and nonuse, and analyze the process by

which people gather information.

Please remember that the study, as stipulated

by the GPO, is a user, not a use, study. We are

looking at users of the GPO depository collec- tion housed in academic and public depository

libraries—who are these users and how many

are there.

MATERIALS CONTAINED IN THIS

PACKET

Please check to make certain that all the nec- essary items are included in this packet:

• Multiple copies of the User Ticket

• Multiple copies of the User Log

• The Depository Library Information Form

• Signs to inform members of the public that

your library is participating in the study.

If any of these materials are not included,

please contact Mr. Mark Scully at the Government Printing Office (202-275-1114) and request

the materials needed.

TIME LINE FOR PARTICIPATION

Your involvement in the study will be limited

to the months of September and October, 1988,

and actual data collection will occur only for one week. Specifically, the activities are as fol- lows:

September 1-9: Receive packet of information and review materials

included in the packet.

September 12-25: Prepare to administer data

collection instruments.

September 26- Administer data collection

October 2: instruments, for a week

that approximates "typical use."

53
54

October 3-9, or You may select ONE of

October 10-16, or these alternative weeks to October 17-23, or administer the data col- October 24-30: lection instruments. First

preference should be the

week of September 26-October 2, but local circumstances may dictate you

select a later week as most typical.

October 31 (or Return completed data col- earlier): lection instrument to in- vestigators.

PREPARATION

Upon receipt of this packet, review the in- structions and the data collection instruments.

Note that three different data collection instruments will be administered:

• User tickets

• User logs

• Depository library information form.

The manner to administer each of these instruments will be described later in these instructions. Prior to actually administering the data col- lection instruments complete the following

steps. These steps will help to ensure successful

data collection later. STEP 1: have one person serve as the coordinator for participating in the study.

STEP 2: confirm which week is acceptable for data collection. Remember the week of September 26-October 2 should be first prefer- ence and the week of October 3-9 second pref- erence. However, you may use one of the

other weeks in October if you must.

STEP 3: inform other staff members that the li- brary will be participating in the study

during the week selected.

STEP 4: identify key service places in the li- brary where depository publications or services are located. Typically, these may include:

• The documents department

• Reference desks (where documents questions might be received)

• Interlibrary loan department/area

• Microforms

• Maps.

Review the instructions and procedures for data

collection with appropriate individuals in each

of these areas. You may want to supply them

with a copy of these instructions.

Given variations among depository libraries,

each library has latitude in its identification of

key service points. Select those most reflective

of your situation. Please note, however, that the

study focuses on the service points of the library

housing the central depository collection. If deemed appropriate, the survey could extend to users of depository publications and services in

key branch libraries. We want to include only

those service points where the public is most

likely to encounter GPO depository publications/services.

STEP 5: identify appropriate locations to post

signs (such as those included in this packet or perhaps others that you might wish to use) in- forming the public that the study will be con- ducted and that their cooperation is requested. Typically, appropriate locations include

the main entrances to the library and the primary service locations where depository publications are located.

STEP 6: distribute an adequate number of

copies of the user tickets and the user logs to appropriate individuals at each depository

publication service location prior to the day

when data collection will actually begin.

ADMINISTERING THE USER

TICKETS

Each packet includes multiple copies of the user ticket. We have estimated the number of user tickets to be sent to each library but

should you need additional user tickets, simply

use a copying machine to make more. At each depository publication service loca- tion in the library provide the staff with an ap- propriate number of user tickets. Four display

boards to hold the user tickets are included to encourage high visibility of the user tickets and

user participation. Place these in a conspicuous

location in that service area.
55

Library staff might pre-check question 7, Location, of the user ticket. This will assist library

patrons and ensure consistency in accurate completion of that question.

Whenever a library patron requires the use of a depository publication, the staff member is to give him/her a user ticket and request that the

ticket be returned to a predetermined location

in that particular service area. It is probably

best to give out the ticket after the person re- ceives the publication or uses the particular

service. It might also be helpful to remind pa- trons to return completed forms before leaving

the library. In addition to questions received in-person,

complete user tickets for:

• Questions received via telephone

• Questions received by mail

• Documents circulated

• Documents lent and borrowed (interlibrary

loan).

Note that the same person might ask a question

by telephone and later visit the library to borrow the document, or use interlibrary loan.

Therefore, inform telephone patrons of the

study. In addition, when you know that a person has used different services (reference,

circulation, or interlibrary loan), count that

person ONLY once. That person might complete

a user ticket but not be recorded on the user

log.

Some questions on the user ticket might in- volve more than one check mark. Some of the

other questions might be left blank. Therefore,

the variable of "sex" serves as a means to obtain a clear count of the number of completed

user tickets that will be processed.

On the academic library user ticket, the cate- gories of college student and faculty member

apply even if the person is not from your insti- tution. The person may be from another col- lege/university.

Collecting User Tickets

To facilitate patron awareness of the study,

please place the signage in noticeable locations.

At some of the pretest sites, staff members cut

off the bottoms of depository boxes and placed

blank and completed user tickets in separate

boxes. They placed boxes in conspicuous locations. Signs could be placed next to the boxes in- structing patrons to pick up and return user

tickets here. Our intent is to make the survey

both official looking and inviting.

Recognizing Depository Publications

It is important for library staff to recognize

that a depository publication was used in a particular transaction. "Depository publication" is any U.S. Government publication distributed to the library as part of the depository library pro- gram. Typically, there will be an accession code

or stamp on such material indicating that the

publication is, in fact, a depository item.

Publications that are not depository material

include, for example, microfiche from the ERIC

clearinghouse or from the National Technical

Information Service (NTIS). However, we realize

that it may be difficult for staff to determine if the material was a depository item or not. Some

general guidelines are:

• Include indexes and catalogs received as part of the depository library program such

as the Monthly Catalog but exclude privately produced indexes such as those of

the Congressional Information Service.

(Consultation of a commercial index usually results in use of depository publications.)

However, if the library has replaced depository holdings with the product of CIS or an- other private company, do include the

users.

• Include material acquired as substitute for depository publications, i.e., one format for another or from a source available faster

than provided by the GPO, especially due

to non-receipt of depository publications on

microfiche. NOTE: This does not apply to one of the commercial equivalents to the

Monthly Catalog. Services produced by

Marcive, Brodart, Silver Platter, AutoGraphics, and Information Access do not

count as use of a depository publication.

Such use will not be counted.

• Include material issued by the GPO even if you are unsure if it was, in fact, a depository item. If the library receives several
56

copies of Statistical Abstract of the United

States and other popular titles through purchase, include this as a use and compile in- formation on the user. AS A RULE OF

THUMB, IF IN DOUBT, CONSIDER THE

DOCUMENT AS A DEPOSITORY ITEM!

In general, try to make certain that the government publication has an accession code or stamp on it indicating that it was received as part of the depository library program.

Giving the User Ticket to Patrons

When giving the user ticket to a patron, use a

short explanatory statement such as the following:

We are participating in a national study of

depository library users this week. We

would greatly appreciate your completing

this questionnaire and returning it to when you're done. It will only take a few moments and we would greatly appreciate your help. THANKS.

However, when the staff member provides the

patron with the user ticket a number of re- sponses from the patron are possible. Depending

on the patron response, the staff member has

different data collection responsibilities.

If the patron accepts the user ticket, completes and returns it to one of the designated lo- cations, then the staff member should quickly

review the user ticket to make certain that as much information, as possible, was provided.

For example, if staff members have not pre- checked the location of the transaction, they

should complete that information on the user

ticket.

If the patron will not accept the user ticket or

indicates that he/she does not wish to participate in the study, then the staff member completes that information on the user ticket which

is self-evident. For example, in an academic li- brary, the staff member would indicate on the user ticket (1) the location where the use oc- curred, (2) the activity, e.g., asking a reference

question, and (3) sex. Depending on the nature

of the transaction, the staff member might also

be able to determine the status of the individual, e.g., whether the individual was a student.

The staff member then adds the user ticket to the collection of completed user tickets.

It is essential that all users of depository publications be counted via the user ticket—regardless of whether the user completes it or the staff member completes it for the user.

If the patron indicates that he/she is seeking

the publication for someone else (e.g., a faculty

member), ask that person to complete the user

ticket for the person sending him/her to the li- brary.

Try not to survey the same person more than

once the same day. In some instances, however,

this may be unavoidable.

Try not to have a person complete a user

ticket and then be counted on the user log.

There could be duplication of effort among service points (i.e., reference and circulation). It is likely that users checking out a document have

just come from a reference desk. Therefore, staff at the various service points should ask: "Have

you already filled out a user ticket?"

Remember to complete user tickets for, tele- phone and mail questions, and items circulated,

borrowed, and lent. If you do reference work by

telephone or mail that involves the use of a depository publication, complete a user ticket. Time Frame for Administering User

Ticket

Staff members should administer these user

tickets, for one week during normal service

hours, at key service points. Service points can

include circulation, reference, interlibrary loan, or other locations designated as providing depository service. If services are not normally pro- vided on Saturday or Sunday, then there will be no formal administration of user tickets during

that time. Still, place copies of the user ticket in

prominent locations and encourage patrons to participate.

ADMINISTERING THE IN-HOUSE

COUNT OF USERS (THE USER LOG)

The purpose of the user log is to obtain a count of the number of "in-house" users of depository materials. The following steps describe

how to administer this user log:
57

1. Identify those locations in the library

where it is possible for users to use depository publications, e.g., documents stacks,

reference room, microforms, and maps.

Branch libraries with significant holdings

of depository publications may be included,

if you deem it practical to administer the

form at these locations.

2. Every hour on the hour from Monday

through Sunday, walk through these nonservice areas where depository publications are housed and count the number of users.

(If you know that a person completed a user

ticket that day, do not include that person on the user log.) Try to have the same

person do the counting that day. If that

person already counted someone that day,

do not count that person again.

3. If you cannot complete the user log for

specific time periods or for one of the days

(such as Saturday or Sunday) indicate on

the log "NO COUNT TAKEN."

4. Use a separate log sheet for each day.

You may want to use separate log sheets in

different parts of the library.

5. Enter the times when the counts are made across the top. If the library opens at

9:00 a.m., the first log entry would be for one hour later at 10:00 a.m., and so forth,

until closing time (or at least as long as

staff are available to take the count).

6. The rows of the User Log are labeled

by type of material. Record the number of users for each type of material, per hour. If users consult more than one type of publication, count their use in the cell where it appears that the greatest amount of contact

is occurring. The assumption is that the same person is taking the count.

7. Total the number of users by type for each day. On one User Log supply the totals

for the entire week.

8. Return the one user log with the sum- mary of users in the same envelope as the

completed Depository Library Information

Form and the completed user tickets.

Special Considerations

• An item is considered used even if a patron

looked at it and found that it was not what

he/she wanted.

• The use of some kinds of publications may

be particularly challenging to measure

without inconveniencing users. In other

words, is that person using a depository

publication or some other source? Therefore, pick up publications on a regular basis so that later it is easier to determine what was used.

• Some uses are almost impossible to count,

while others will go uncounted. Do the best

you can in linking use to a user. But know

that no measure is perfect.

• It is easy to forget times for data collection

when staff are busy with other duties. Set- ting a timer or using an alarm clock will

help.

• Libraries cataloging and integrating depository publications should assign one staff member per day to browse periodically key

areas of the general collection and observe

depository users.

• Consistency in counting will be improved if only a few staff members participate in this

particular activity.

COMPLETING THE DEPOSITORY

LIBRARY INFORMATION FORM

The last data collection instrument to complete is the Depository Library Information

Form. You should complete this form at the end

of the data collection week because question No.

11 asks you to describe any special conditions or experiences during the week that may have had

an impact on the data collection process. Simply

provide the information requested in the space

provided on that form.

RETURNING THE DATA

At the end of the one-week data collection

period, collect all the user tickets, total all the

information from the user logs onto one summary log, and complete the Depository Library In- formation Form. Enclose all of these materials
58

into a secure mailing container and send them

FIRST CLASS MAIL to: Charles R. McClure

School of Information Studies

Syracuse University

Syracuse, NY 13244

Thanks in advance for your assistance and

participation.
Appendix C

Depository Library Information Form

INSTRUCTIONS: In addition to monitoring the number of users of depository publications for the week, we would appreciate your completion of this short survey. Tne purpose is to obtain descriptive information about the academic and public depository

libraries participating in the survey Responses from this questionnaire will be used tc better understand the data from the user logs and user tickets. The final report will net identify individual libraries.

DEPOSITORY LIBRARY NAME:

DEPOSITORY LIBRARY NUMBER:

1. What percentage of depository items do you currently select?

a. REGIONAL (ALL) d. 41-60

b. 80 or more e 20-'iO

c. 61-80 f. Under 20

2. What iS :he full-time eauivalent (Fi E; numcer c: stair members who work with U.S. Goverrment puc:icatiGns oeposited

cv 3^0. ;INC'CATE NUMEE.=S =0R -LL ~-AT APPLY A FULLTIME EGUr.ALE.NT IS ::EFiNED .AS WOPKiNG

HOURS PER WEEK IN DOCUMENTS.)

a. Professional c. Student

b. Para-professional

Describe how documents are housed m relation to the rest of the collection: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

a. Most depository materials are located together m a separate department or area of the library

b. Most depository materials are integrated throughout the

library

c. Maps are housed separately from other depository

matenals

d. Microforms are housed separately from other depository

materials

e. A large percentage (20% or more) of the documents are housed in branches of the library system

f. A large percentage (20% or more) of the documents

are sent to one or more locations outside of the depository library (e.g., to other institutions)

4. If the majority of documents is (a) integrated, (b) split among areas of the library, or (c) sent to other institutions, what

percentage remains in a separate collection: (CHECK ONE)

a. 41 -50% f. Doesn't apply because most documents are kept in a

b. 31 -40% separate collection

c. 21-30% 9- Doesn't apply because none are kept m a separate

d. 11-20% collecticn

e. 1-10%

5. What cercerrace of "re ceccsitcr . cc::ec;:cn ^ec: n ccsed srac-s (sracKS rha; 'icrary pa;r:"s are net pefr-^ittec ro jsep

a. More tl. an 75% d. 1 24''-9

b. 51-75-^0 c. Dees'"' 3ppl'. recause a:' jecos.'C", puc!icat'C~s reside

c. 25-5C^o ^r. open stacks

59
60

6. For the week that staff coilected data for this study, how many hours could patrons access depository holdings'!'

a. Mere than 100 d. 25-49

b. 75-100 e. Less than 25 nours

c. 50-74

7 For that week, how many hours did staff provide reference service for depository holdings?

a. More than 100 d. 25-49

b. 75-100 e. Less than 25 hours

c. 50-74

8. As a general estimate, what percentage of the depository holdings was monitored during this study''

a. 75 or more

b. 50-74

c. 25-49

d. Under 25

9. Specify the week that you conducted the survey;

a. September 26-October 2

b. October 3-October 9

c. October lO-Octcber 16

d. October 17-October 23

e. October 24-October 30

10. Cia you conduct the survey for:

a. Five days (Monday through Friday) b- Seven days (Monday through Sunday)

C-r:nc "he -vee.^ or ca;a zoilection, were ;here any unique conditions or experiences ihat might heic :c cetter expiai tre context in which the data were collected''
Appendix D

Academic Library User Ticket

^

UNITED STATES

1^ GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

, ACADEMIC LIBRARY USER TICKET

DOCUMENTS USER, PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FORM AND RETURN'

U n TO EITHER THE BOX OR PERSON WHO GAVE IT TO YOU!

^^.WE NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE^ •

. sj:->OR EACH question, check the appropriate box y^.

1. Are you (MARK ALL THAT APPLY) , ;

' - : " "

:

• Yes' - No

a. Asking a reference question .' - _; .;. , -

b. Checking but a document / ^

'

.

'

c. Making an interlibrary toan request for a document v. • - - d. Using a document, be it in paper copy or microform, or a map ' "' O

e. Other: - - " - ' ~ ' -r-. : -- - ^

2. Have you already completed one of these tickets today or this week? Yes .- No

•

3. Sex: . vv->/-'-:^ :

- Female - Male ..

4. Are you a .. . Yes No

a. College student

b. Faculty member

c. Staff member of school

d. Local community member

e. Other:

5. What level of schooling have you completed?

a. Some or all of junior high school

b. Some or all of high school

c. Some or ail of college

d. Master's degree or doctorate THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION

TO BE completed BY LIBRARY STAFF

6. If "yes" was checked for 'asking a reference question' (Question la), was that question^ked?

'Yes No /

a. In-person ^:"''~: ' "'

^

," .' " '•VD

^b. By telephone ^ :" - . - ; '. • .

'

c. By rriail

' ' ' --Z -:i - ~ ' u^-^

7. Location:

• Central Reference

•5 Documents Dept. : Combined Ref/Docs

Maps DeptJArea

Microforms

if a separate unit of the library and not part of the

" documents or reference department, mark: Mtcroforms Maps

"

- iT;^^ j Circulation Dept. - . }!;^^^ V^--^^^^' D ^ Interlibrary Loan .j-." :i,;~?^vr^ 'T'^^

;;*';i^r7:'^~0 '"'^:%ranch ' - " J']

' '"^^'^'O . A^- :- v .^^o other j____i___--.i;^-^^^,D -

61

Appendix E

Public Library User Ticket

UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

PUBLIC LIBRARY USER TICKET

DOCUMENTS USER, PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FORM AND RETURN

IT TO EITHER THE BOX OR PERSON WHO GAVE IT TO YOU.

WE NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE.

FOR EACH QUESTION, CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX

Are you (MARK ALL THAT APPLY) Yes No

a. Asking a reference question

b. Checking out a document

c. I\^aking an interllbrary loan request for a document

d. Using a document, be it in paper copy or microform, or a map

e. Other:

2. Have you already completed one of these tickets today or this week? ves No

3. Sex Female Male

What level of schooling have you completed?

a. Some or all of junior high school

b. Some or all of high school

c. Some or all of college

d. Master's degree or doctorate

5. Occupation (Mark ONLY ONE)

a. Homemaker

b. Manager or proprietor

c. Operator, frabricator, laborer (machine operator, inspector, assembler;

transportation & material moving; handlers, equipment cleaners,

helpers, & laborers)

d. Precision, production, craft, & repair

e. Professional (teacher, doctor, librarian, accountant, etc.)

f. Technical sales and administrative support (including technicians and related support, sales, & administrative support— clerical)

g. Retired

h. Student

i. Unemployed

j. Other (Specify): THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION

TO BE COMPLETED BY LIBRARY STAFF

If "Yes" was checked for "asking a reference question" (Question 1 a), was that question asked? Yes No

a. In-person

b. By telephone

c. By mail Q D

7. Location: Central Reference Circulation Dept. Documents Dept. Interlibrary Loan Combined Ref/Docs Subject Division Maps Dept./Area (e.g., Science) Microforms Other:

If a separate unit of the library and not part of the documents or reference department, mark: Microforms Maps

63

Appendix F

Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational

Categories*

Occupation Occupation—Continued

Managerial and professional specialty occupations

Executive, administrative, and managerial

occupation

Legislators, chief execs., & genl.

admstrs., pub admstrs.

Administrators and officials, public

administration

Administrators, protective service

Financial managers

Personnel and labor relations managers

Purchasing managers

Managers, marketing, advertising, &

public relations

Administrators, education and related

fields Managers, medicine and health

Managers, properties and real estate Postmasters and mail superintendents

Funeral directors

Managers and administrators, n.e.c. Mangement-related occupations

Accountants and auditors

Underwriters and other financial

officers

Management analysts

Personnel, training, & labor rela- tions specialists

Purchasing agents and buyers,

farm products

Buyers, wholesale & retail trade,

exc. farm pdts.

Purchasing agents and buyers,

n.e.c. Business and promotion agents

Construction inspectors

Inspectors & compliance officers, exc construction

Management-related occupations,

n.e.c. Professional specialty occupations

Engineers, architects, and surveyors

Architects

Engineers

Aerospace engineers

Metallurgical and materials engi- neers Mining engineers

Petroleum engineers

Chemical engineers

Nuclear engineers

Civil engineers

Agricultural engineers

Electrical and electronic engineers

Industrial engineers

Mechanical engineers

Marine engineers and naval architects Engineers, n.e.c. Surveyors and mapping scientists

Mathematical and computer scientists

Computer systems analysts and scientists Operations and systems researchers and

analysts

Actuaries

Statisticians

Mathematical scientists, n.e.c. Natural scientists

Physicists and astronomers

Chemists, except biochemists

Atmospheric and space scientists

Geologists and geodesists

Physical scientists, n.e.c. Agricultural and food scientists

Biological and life scientists

Forestry and conservation scientists

Medical scientists

Health diagnosing occupations

Physicians

Dentists

Veterinarians

Optometrists

Podiatrists

Health diagnosing practicioners, n.e.c.

*Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor

Statistics, Regional Office, Boston, MA.

65
Occupation—Continued

Health assessment and treating occupations

Registered nurses Pharmacists

Dieticians

Therapists

Inhalation therapists

Occupational therapists

Physical therapists

Speech therapists

Therapists, n.e.c. Physicians' assistants

Teachers, college and university

Earth, environmental & marine science

teachers

Biological science teachers

Chemistry teachers

Physics teachers

Natural science teachers, n.e.c. Psychology teachers

Economics teachers

History teachers :

'

Political science teachers ;

'

Sociology teachers

Social science teachers, n.e.c. Engineering teachers

Mathematical science teachers

Computer science teachers

Medical science teachers

Health specialties teachers

Business, commerce, and marketing

teachers

Agriculture and forestry teachers

Art, drama, and music teachers

Physical education teachers

Education teachers

English teachers

Foreign language teachers

Law teachers

Social work teachers

Theology teachers

Trade and industrial teachers

Home economics teachers

Teachers, postsecondary, n.e.c. Postsecondary teachers, subject not

specified

Teachers, except college and university

Teachers, prekindergarten and kindergarten

Teachers, elementary school

Occupation—Continued

Teachers, secondary school

Teachers, special education

Teachers, n.e.c. Counselors, educational and vocational

Librarians, archivists, and curators

Librarians

Archivists and curators

Social scientists and urban planners

Economists

Psychologists

Sociologists

Social scientists, n.e.c. Urban planners

Social, recreation, and religious workers

Social workers

Recreation workers

Clergy

Religious workers, n.e.c. Lawyers and judges

Lawyers

Judges

Writers, authors, entertainers, and athletes

Authors

Technical writers

Designers

Musicians and composers

Actors and directors

Painters, sculptors, craft artists, &

artist print

Photographers

' Dancers

Artists, performers, & related workers,

n.e.c. Editors and reporters

Public relations specialists

Announcers

Athletes

Technical, sales, and administrative support oc- cupations

Technicians and related support occupations

Health technologists and technicians

Clinical laboratory technologists

and technicians

Dental hygienists

Health record technologists and

technicians

Radiologic technicians

Licensed practical nurses
67

Occupation—Continued

Health technologists and technicians, n.e.c. Engineering & related technologists and

technicians

Electrical and electronic technicians

Industrial engineering technicians

Mechanical engineering technicians

Engineering technicians, n.e.c. Drafting occupations

Surveying and mapping technicians

Science technicians

Biological technicians

Chemical technicians

Science technicians, n.e.c. Technicians, except health, engineering,

and science

Airplane pilots and navigators

Air traffic controllers

Broadcast equipment operators

Computer programmers

Tool programmers, numerical control Legal assistants

Technicians, n.e.c. Sales occupations

Supervisors and proprietors

Sales representatives, finance and business

services

Insurance sales

Real estate sales

Securities and financial services sales

Advertising and related sales

Sales occupations, other business services

Sales reps., commodities, exc. retail, inc. sales engrs. Sales workers, retail and personal services

Sales workers, motor vehicles and boats

Sales workers, apparel

Sales workers, shoes

Sales workers, furniture and home fur- nishings

Sales workers, radio, tv, hi-fi, and appli- ances

Sales workers, hardware and building

supplies

Sales workers, parts

Sales workers, other commodities

Occupation—Continued

Sales counter clerks

Cashiers

Street and door-to-door sales workers

News vendors

Sales-related occupations

Demonstrators, promoters, and models,

sales

Auctioneers

Sales support occupations, n.e.c. Administrative support occupations, including

clerical

Supervisors, administrative support

Supervisors, general office Supervisors, computer equipment oper- ators Supervisors, financial records process- ing

Chief communications operators

Supervisors, distribution, scheduling, &

adjusting

Computer equipment operators

Computer operators

Peripheral equipment operators

Secretaries, stenographers, and typists

Secretaries

Stenographers

Typists

Information clerks

Interviewers

Hotel clerks

Transportation, ticket and reservation

agents

Receptionists

Information clerks, n.e.c. Records processing occupations, except fi- nancial

Classified-ad clerks

Correspondence clerks

Order clerks

Personnel clerks, except payroll and ti- mekeeping

Library clerks

File clerks

Records clerks

Financial records processing occupations

Bookkeepers, accounting, and auditing

clerks

Payroll and timekeeping clerks

Billing clerks
Occupation—Continued

Cost and rate clerks

Billing, posting, & calculating machine

operators

Duplicating, mail, & other office machine

operators

Duplicating machine operators

Mail preparing & paper handling machine operators

Office machine operators, n.e.c. Communications equipment operators

Telephone operators

Telegraphers

Communications equipment operators,

n.e.c. Mail and message distributing operators

Postal clerks, except mail carriers

Mail carriers, postal service

Mail clerks, except postal service

Messengers

Material recording, scheduling, & distr. clerks

Dispatchers

Production coordinators

Traffic, shipping, and receiving clerks

Stock and inventory clerks

Meter readers

Weighers, measurers, and checkers

Samplers

Expediters

Material rec'dg. scheduling, & distr. clerks

Adjusters and investigators

Insurance adjusters, examiners, and in- vestigators

Investigators and adjusters, except in- surance

Eligibility clerks, social welfare

Bill and account collectors

Miscellaneous administrative support occu- pations

General office clerks

Bank tellers Proofreaders

Data-entry keyers

Statistical clerks

Teachers' aides

Administrative support occupations,

n.e.c.

Occupation—Continued

Service occupations

Private household occupations

Launderers and ironers

Cooks, private household

Housekeepers and butlers

Child care workers, private households

Private household cleaners and serv- ants

Protective service occupations

Supervisors, protective service occupations

Supervisors, firefighting and fire pre- vention

Supervisors, police and detectives

Supervisors, guards

Firefighting and fire prevention occupations

Fire inspection and fire prevention oc- cupations

Firefighting occupations

Police and detectives

Police and detectives, public service

Sheriffs, bailiffs, & other law enforcement officers

Correctional institution officers

Guards

Crossing guards

Guards and police, except public service

protective service occupations, n.e.c. Service occupations, exc protective and pvt.

household

Food preparation and service occupations

Supervisors, food preparation and service

Bartenders

Waiters and waitresses

Cooks, except short order

Short-order cooks

Food counter, fountain, and related oc- cupations

Kitchen workers, food preparation

Waiters'/ waitresses' assistants

Miscellaneous food preparation occupations

Health service occupations

Dental assistants

Health aides, except nursing

Nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants

Cleaning & bldg. service occupations, exc. household

Supervisors, cleaning and building service workers
69

Occupation—Continued

Maids and housemen

Janitors and cleaners

Elevator operators

Pest control occupations

Personal service occupations

Supervisors, personal service occupations

Barbers

Hairdressers and cosmotologists

Attendants, amusement and recreation

facilities Guides

Ushers

Public transportation attendants

Baggage porters and bellhops

Welfare service aides

Child care workers, except private

household

Personal service occupations, n.e.c. Precision production, craft, and repair occupations

Mechanics and repairers

Supervisors, mechanics and repairers

Mechanics and repairers, except supervisors

Vehicle & mobile equipment mechanics & repairers

Automobile mechanics

Bus, truck, and stationary

engine mechanics

Aircraft engine mechanics

Small engine repairers

Automobile body and related

repairers

Aircraft mechanics, except

engine

Heavy equipment mechanics

Fare equipment mechanics

Industrial machinery repairers

Machinery maintenance occupations

Electrical and electronic equipment

repairers

Electronic repairers, communications & industrial

Data processing equipment re- pairers

Household appliance and

power tool repairers

Occupation—Continued

Telephone line installers and

repairers

Telephone installers and re- pairers

Misc. electrical & electronic

equipment repairers

Heating, air conditioning, & refrig.

mechanics

Miscellaneous mechanics and re- pairers

Camera, watch, and musical in- strument repairers

Locksmiths and safe repairers

Office machine repairers

Mechanical controls and valve

repairers

Elevator installers and repair- ers Millwrights

Specified mechanics and re- pairers, n.e.c. Not specified mechanics and re- pairers

Construction trades

Supervisors, construction occupations

Suprvsrs., brickmasons, stonemasons, & tile setters Supervisors, carpenters and related

workers

Supvsrs., electricians & power

tranmssn. installers

Supervisors, painters, paperhangers, & plasterers

Supervisors, plumbers, pipefitters,

& steamfitters

Supervisors, n.e.c. Construction trades, except supervisors

Brickmasons and stonemasons

Tile setters, hard and soft Carpet installers

Carpenters

Drywall installers

Electricians

Electrical power installers and re- pairers

Painters, construction and mainte- nance

Paperhangers

Plasterers
Occupation—Continued Occupation—Continued

Plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters Concrete and terrazzo finishers

Glaziers

Insulation workers

Paving, surfacing, and tamping

equipment operators

Roofers

Sheet metal duct installers

Structural metalworkers

Drillers, earth

Construction trades, n.e.c. Extractive occupations

Supervisors, extractive occupations

Drillers, oil well

Explosive workers

Mining machine operators

Mining occupations, n.e.c. Precision production occupations

Supervisors, production occupations

Precision metalworking occupations

Tool and die makers

Precision assemblers, metal

Machinists

Boilermakers

Precision grinders, fitters, and tool

sharpeners

Patternmakers and model makers,

metal

Lay-out workers

Precious stones and metals workers

(jewelers)

Engravers, metal

Sheet metal workers

Miscellaneous precision metalworkers Precision woodworking occupations

Patternmakers and model makers,

wood

Cabinet makers and bench carpenters Furniture and wood finishers

Miscellaneous precision woodworkers Precision textile, apparel, and furnishings machine

Dressmakers

Tailors

Upholsterers

Shoe repairers

Apparel and fabric patternmakers

Miscellaneous precision apparel

and fabric workers

Precision workers, assorted materials

Hand molders and shapers, except

jewelers

Patternmakers, lay-out workers,

and cutters Optical goods workers

Dental laboratory & medical appli- ance technicians

Bookbinders

Electrical and electronic equipment

assemblers

Miscellaneous precision workers,

n.e.c. Precision food production occupations

Butchers and meat cutters Bakers

Food batchmakers

Precision inspectors, testers, and relat- ed workers

Inspectors, testers, and graders

Adjusters and calibrators

Plant and system operators

Water and sewage treatment plant

operators

Power plant operators

Stationary engineers

Miscellaneous plant and system op- erators Operators, fabricators, and laborers

Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectorsMachine operators and tenders, except

precision

Metalworking and plastic working

machine operators

Lathe and turning machine set- up operators

Lathe and turning machine op- erators Milling and planing machine

operators

Punching and stamping press

machine operators

Rolling machine operators
71

Occupation—Continued Occupation—Continued

Drilling and boring machine

operators

Grinding, abrading, buffing, &

polishing machinists

Forging machine operators

Numerical control machine op- erators Misc metal, plastic, stone, &

glass wkg. mach. ops. Fabricating machine operators,

n.e.c. Metal and plastic processing machine operators

Molding and casting machine

operators

Metal plating machine operators Heat treating equipment operators Misc. metal & plastic process- ing machine opers. Woodworking machine operators

Wood lathe, routing, & planing

machine operators

Sawing machine operators

Shaping and joining machine

operators

Nailing and tacking machine

operators

Miscellaneous woodworking

machine operators

Printing machine operators

Photoengravers and lithographers

Typesetters and compositors

Miscellaneous printing machine op- erators

Textile, apparel, & furnishings machine

operators

Winding and twisting machine op- erators Knitting, looping, taping, & weaving mach. opers. Textile cutting machine operators

Textile sewing machine operators

Shoe machine operators

Pressing machine operators

Laundering and dry cleaning machine operators

Miscellaneous textile machine oper- ators Machine operators, assorted materials

Cementing and gluing machine op- erators Packaging and filling machine op- erators Extruding and forming machine op- erators Mixing and blending machine operators Separating, filtering, & clarifying

mach. opers. Compressing and compacting machine operators

Painting and paint spraying machine operators

Roasting and baking machine operators, food

Washing, cleaning, & pickling machine operators

Folding machine operators

Furnace, kiln, and oven operators,

except food

Crushing and grinding machine op- erators

Slicing and cutting machine operators Motion picture projectionists

Photographic process machine operators Miscellaneous machine operators,

n.e.c. Machine operators, not specified

Fabricators, assemblers, and hand working occu- pations

Welders and cutters Solderers and brazers

Assemblers

Hand cutting and trimming occupations

Hand molding, casting, and forming occupations

Hand painting, coating, and decorating oc- cupations

Hand engraving and printing occupations

Hand grinding and polishing occupations

Miscellaneous hand working occupations

Production inspectors, testers, samplers, and

weighers
72

Occupation—Continued

Production inspectors, checkers, and examiners

Production testers Production samplers and weighers

Graders and sorters, except agricultural

Transportation and material moving occupations

Motor vehicle operators

Supervisors, motor vehicle operators

Truck drivers, heavy

Truck drivers, light

Driver-sales workers

Bus drivers

Taxicab drivers and chauffeurs

Parking lot attendants

Motor transportation occupations, n.e.c. Transportation occupations, except motor vehicleRail transportation occupations

Railroad conductors and yardmasters

Locomotive operating occupations

Railroad brake, signal, and switch operators Rail vehicle operators, n.e.c. Water transportation occupations

Ship captains and mates, except fishing

boats

Sailors and deckhands

Marine engineers

Bridge, lock, and lighthouse tenders

Material moving equipment operators

Supervisors, material moving equipment op- erators Operating engineers

Longshore equipment operators

Hoist and winch operators

Crane and tower operators

Excavating and loading machine operators

Grader, dozer, and scraper operators

Industrial truck and tractor equipment op- erators Miscellaneous material moving equipment

operators

Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and la- borers

Supervisors, handlers, equipment cleaners,

& laborers

Helpers, mechanics and repairers

Occupation—Continued

Helpers, construction and extractive occupations

Helpers, construction trades

Helpers, surveyor

Helpers, extractive occupations

Construction laborers

Production helpers

Freight, stock, and material handlers

Garbage collectors

Stevedores

Stock handlers and baggers

Machine feeders and offbearers

Freight, stock, and material handlers,

n.e.c. Garage and service station related occupations

Vehicle washers and equipment cleaners

Hand packers and packagers

Laborers, except construction

Farming, forestry, and fishing occupations

Farm operators and managers

Farmers

Farm managers

Other agricultural and related occupations

Farm occupations, except managerial

Supervisors, farm workers

Fare workers

Marine life cultivation workers

Nursery workers

Related agricultural occupations

Supervisors, related agricultural oc- cupations

Groundskeepers and gardeners,

except farm

Animal caretakers, except farm

Graders and sorters, agricultural

products

Inspectors, agricultural products

Forestry and logging occupations

Supervisors, forestry and logging

occupations

Forestry workers, except logging

Timber cutting and logging occupations

Fishers, hunters, and trappers

Captains and other officers, fishing

vessels

Fishers

Hunters and trappers
Appendix G

Count of In-House Users (User Log)

Appendix H

Publicity Signage

DURING THIS WEEK

OUR LIBRARY IS

PARTICIPATING IN A

NATIONAL USER SURVEY

OF UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT

DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES.

WE WOULD GREATLY

APPRECIATE YOUR

ASSISTANCE IN

COMPLETING THIS

STUDY. THANKS!
NATIONAL

SURVE

Y

IN

PROGRESS
77

USER SURVEY

PLEASE COMPLETE ONE

Appendix I Data Handling Procedures

COMPLETING MASTER CHECK-IN FORM

Fill in master check-in form, including

• Date

• Name and ID number of library

• Presence (mark with a check-mark) of li- brary, information forms (LIF), user log,

and user tickets. Leave blank if documents

are missing

• If documents are missing, or there is an- other obvious problem, mark the problems

column and describe the problem briefly

under the comments column. Check the

comments section of LIF to see if the li- brary explained any problems there

• Put your initials in the "init." column

• Ignore the "usable/un." column (which will

be filled in when the tickets are counted)

and the "gone" column (which will be filled in when the tickets go to Data Entry).

Possible Problems

• If the user log is missing, note that. However, send the rest of the documents to the

next stage

• If either the LIF or the user tickets is missing, separate that set, note the problem on

the master sheet, and hold for problem res- olution

• If only daily user logs were sent, fill in a summary user log. Do not send the daily

logs on to data entry. Separate and discard

them.

Mark date on LIF before throwing envelope

away.

For "okay" sets, separate the user tickets

from the LIF. Rubber band the user tickets and

clearly label with library ID# and name.

Staple the user log and the LIF together with

the demo sheet on top.

Place user tickets in the box for stamping and

user log/LIF in box for checking.

USER TICKET STAMPING PROCEDURE

Create a stamp for the library ID, inserting a "4" for academic libraries and a "5" for public

libraries, as the first digit of the number.

Note library ID# on the top left of the first ticket. Stamp the ticket # on the top right of each

ticket. Remember to reset the counter for each

library.

Scan tickets for possible problems. After

stamping, separate problem tickets from others,

rubber band, and clearly label with library

ID#, and problem description.

Rubber band usable tickets. Keep usable tick- ets and problem tickets together until fixable

problems have been resolved.

The number of usable and unusable tickets

must be noted on the master sheet once any fix- able problems have been resolved. Insert usable tickets in box for data entry and

put any remaining unusable tickets aside.

USER LOG/LIBRARY INFORMATION FORM PROCEDURE

Add first digit ("4" for academic, "5" for Add additional responses to the bottom of the

public) to the library ID#, on the LIF. LIF, as per code instructions.

Make sure library ID# is on user log.

79
80

Check user log to make sure numbers on Put problem document sets in Problem Enveright hand column tally properly. If not, correct. lope for attention. Put "okay" sets in box for Scan for other problems. Separate document data entry,

sets with problems from other sets.

STEPS TAKEN TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY IN DATA CODING

I. User Tickets: General Decisions

A. Tickets that were completely blank were

discarded.

B. Tickets that were blank except for the portion to be completed by library staff were dis- carded.

C. When one ticket was used to represent two

or more users, and that number of users was

given (e.g., "group of 15 students"), separate

tickets were created for each person. If the

number of males and females was given, that

question was answered on each card. If any

answer was known to apply to all the users in

the group (e.g., "using a document"), that answer was checked. Otherwise, these cards were left blank.

D. When an answer was circled or otherwise

marked without placing a check in the box, the

appropriate box was marked.

E. When one ticket was used to summarize all the tickets that had been collected by one li- brary (with a number marked next to each re- sponse), and the individual tickets were not re- turned by the library, the procedure in C

(above) was followed.

F. When a ticket was obviously misused, it was discarded. Examples: tickets with every box on the face of the card checked, and tickets cov- ered with irrelevant or humorous comments

and no usable answers.

II. User Tickets: Decisions on

Individual Questions

Question 1: A. When the space following "other" was

filled in with a comment but no box was

checked, the "yes" box was marked.

B. When the space following "other" was

filled in with "taking a tour," and no other box was checked, the ticket was discarded.

Question 2: A. When the answer was written in the blank

space and not checked as "yes" or "no," the ap- propriate box was marked.

B. On the Public Library ticket, where there was confusion due to the printed error on the

card, the appropriate box was marked whenever

the answer could be determined.

Question 3: A. When both boxes were checked or the answer was otherwise unusable, the question was marked "code as 0."

Question 4 (Public Library Ticket):

A. When more than one box was checked, the

box representing the highest level of schooling was marked.

B. When a comment was written indicating

that the user was in the process of earning a master's degree, the "master's degree or doctor- ate" box was marked.

C. When a comment was written indicating

that the user had a J.D. or another advanced

degree, but no box was checked, "the master's

degree or doctorate" box was marked.

Question 4 (Academic Library Ticket): A. When more than one box was checked, the

box closest to the top of the card was marked.

"College student" took priority over "staff

member," for example.

B. Many users marked law student, medical

student, graduate student, etc., in the "other"

space. In such instances, "college student" was

marked.
81

C. When a comment was given in the blank

following "other," and that comment duplicated one of the answer options, the appropriate answer was marked.

D. When the only box checked in the "no"

column, and the answers to questions 2 and 3 (above) were in the same column ("no" for question 2 and "male" for question 3), the "yes" box was marked under the assumption that the user simply misplaced his check mark.

Question 5 (Public Library Ticket): A. When an occupation was given in the

blank following "other," and that occupation obviously correlated with one of the answer options, the appropriate answer was marked.

B. When "retired," "student," or "unemployed" was checked along with another

answer, "retired," "student," or "unemployed" was given priority.

C. Otherwise, when two boxes were checked, an attempt was made to alternate, throughout a

stack of tickets, between marking the answer

higher on the card and marking the answer

lower on the card. D. When three or more boxes were checked,

the question was marked "code as 0."

E. When an occupation was given in the

blank following "other," and that occupation

did not obviously correlate with one of the answer options, care was taken to see that the

box for "other" was marked.

Question 5 (Academic Library Ticket): A. The same procedures were applied as in

question 4 (public library ticket) above.

Question 6: A. When two answers were checked, priority was given to the answer higher on the card ("inperson" was selected over "by telephone," for example.

B. If all three answers were checked, the

question was marked "code as 0."

C. When it was obvious that both the user and the staff member had answered the question, the box checked by the staff member was

given priority.

Question 7: A. When two boxes were checked, it was typi- cal for other cards in the same stack to have the same two boxes checked. An attempt was made

to alternate, throughout the stack, between the

given answers.

B. When three or more boxes were checked,

the answer was marked "code as 0."

C. On the Public Library ticket, when "humanities," "business," or another subject was named in the blank following "other," the "subject division" box was marked instead. D. When it was obvious that both the user and the staff member had answered the question, the box checked by the staff member was

given priority.

III. User Logs

A. If individual (daily) logs were sent but were

not summarized, a summary log was prepared.

B. If separate logs or summary logs were made for different departments or branches,

these totals were summarized onto a single user

log.

C. If the summary log was sent but totals were not calculated, this information was added.

D. If the user log was obviously used to tally

the number of user tickets completed, the log was discarded.

E. If the hours of the day were added (e.g., 1:00 plus 2:00 plus 3:00 equals 6 hours) this total was crossed out.

F. If the number of users was entered where

the hours of the day were supposed to be entered, and no other numbers were given, the

number of users was transferred to the "could

not determine type . . ." row.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1989—233-579 (F5432)