Executive Summary

Title Page

Executive Summary

Chapter I:

     Problem Statement
     Definitions
     Background
     Research Objective

Chapter II:
Literature Review

     Shelf Reading and
        Shelving
     Staff Motivation
     Staffing and Training
     Benchmarking

Chapter III:
Methodology

     Type of Research
     Hypotheses
     Units of Analysis
     Data Usage
        Indicators
     Population/Sample

Chapter IV:
Data Analysis

     Reliability and
       Validity
     Scope and
       Limitations
     Analysis
     Results
     Summary

Chapter V:
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

     Summary
     Conclusions
     Recommendations

Executive Summary

The objective of this study was to investigate and make an assessment of the book and journal collection shelving quality in the Greenblatt Library. The investigator developed a systematic plan for evaluating the quality of shelving through the use of cumulative historical data and random observations. The results showed an average of > 98% quality or accuracy level for both the book and journal collections. An extensive literature review produced thought provoking information which was incorporated into the study's design, implementation and recommendations. The results indicate that the Greenblatt Library has a high level of quality or accuracy of shelving in the book and journal collections. There is no significant difference in the quality of shelving of books versus journals. The results of this study show a > 98% accuracy rate. Obviously, this is a reflection of a conscientious, motivated group of library assistants (shelvers and shelf readers) who take great pride in their quality of work. It is also a reflection of the full time Library Information Center (LInC) staff's commitment to ongoing quality improvements.

Recommendations included:

Continue with present procedures relating to hiring, training and work assignments.
Continue to keep relevant statistics relating to shelving in order to compare and benchmark quality with other similar libraries.
Continue to assign LInC full time staff to monitor sections of books and journals for neatness and accuracy and continue to have library assistants assigned to specific sections for shelf reading on an ongoing basis.
At least once per year (twice if possible) have both collections shelf read by full- time LInC staff and have them keep statistics from these readings as a quality indicator.
Further studies are needed to compare this study=s results with that of other similar health science libraries.
Continue to look for better ways to increase speed while maintaining accuracy.
Explore the use of computer based instruction for training new staff to shelf read and shelve.

Back to Main Menu

Library | Medical College of Georgia

Please email comments, suggestions or questions to:
Jackie Rodgers, jrodgers@mail.mcg.edu.
September, 1998