Title Page

Executive Summary

Appendixes

List of Tables

List of Charts

Methodology

Type of Research

The type of research used was descriptive. This research consisted of historical data and observations which were currently gathered by various departments in the Greenblatt Library. It makes comparisons and generates a basis of information which will be useful to management in decision making and possibly used as a springboard for further studies related to shelving improvement. It will also be used as an internal baseline or benchmark to make comparisons of shelving quality with other health science libraries. Data were gathered and analyzed to test two hypotheses. There were seven types of data collected (see Appendix for data collection tools and forms). The types of data collected are as follows:

1. Observational data from actual shelf reading of the book and journal collections
2. Direct shelf reading observations from random spot checks in both the journal and book collections
3. Cumulative supervisor spot check reports for shelving quality of each part-time shelver
4. Complaint forms relating to shelving issues for the last six months
5. Item locate requests
6. Total number of requests from full-time staff for the LInC supervisor to read in a particular area
7. Logbook of shelf reading for the past six months

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: The Greenblatt Library’s book and journal collection quality of shelving is not greater than 95% accurate.

Hypothesis 2: There is a difference in the quality of shelving of books versus journals.

Units of Analysis

Historical data and direct observations were the units of analysis. These were chosen in order to get a complete picture of the current shelving quality. Hypothesis 1 was tested using several different data sources basically by calculating the mean from each group of data from the book and journal collections. A Z-test was performed to test if there was a significant difference in the quality of shelving in the book section versus the journals section. Note: During the time of data collection the book stacks had to be moved from the second floor to the first floor in order to accommodate growth needs in the journal collection. After shifting was completed by the library assistants, the Library Information Center department head felt there was a need at that time to completely shelf read the entire book collection and that it should be done by full-time staff. This information, along with complete journal collection shelf reading from August 1997, gave actual direct observational population data to be used for this study. These data were used in addition to the sample data collected for comparison of quality shelving.

Data Usage Indicators

1. Observational data from actual shelf reading of the book and journal collections were used to test the first hypothesis. This was done by finding the actual percent of accuracy in the book and journal collections and comparing them. The second hypothesis was tested using a Z-test from these same data.
2. Direct shelf reading observations from random spot checks in both the journal and book collections were collected in order to provide additional sample comparative information.
3. Cumulative supervisor spot check reports for shelving quality of each part-time shelver were collected to test hypotheses 1 and 2 and to make an assessment of the shelving accuracy of the library assistants. These data also indicated if there were a need for additional training.
4. The number of complaint forms received which were related to shelving issues were collected and used as indicators of quality. These were from the perspective of library patrons/users (e.g., high number of complaints = low quality or low number of complaint = high quality).
5. Item locate requests for the past six months were counted and divided into groups. The specific totals useful from these data were the requests which were found shelved incorrectly or not found at all. If they were found on the correct shelf or if they were found checked out or in another location (other) then this would not indicate a shelving quality problem.
6. Total number of requests from full-time staff to the LInC supervisor regarding particular sections which appeared to need shelf reading or straightening. These were used as indicators of shelving quality; e.g., quality is high if there are only a few requests and quality is low if there are many requests.
7. A total number of hours was counted for book and journal collection shelf reading for the past six months. This figure came from a logbook kept at the LInC desk where library assistants recorded the number of times they shelf read in an assigned area. This indicator was used to assess the current amount of shelf- reading done by library assistants.
8. Additional samples/counts useful for comparison or calculations were the number of minutes it takes to shelf read a unit of seven shelves for books and a unit of six shelves for journals, the number of units in each section and the pay per hour for library assistants.

Population/Sample

The data sets were from sample and population data. The observational data obtained from full-time staff shelf reading the two collections were actual population data. These readings were a complete representation of the population because all shelves in the book and journal collections were examined. All other observational data were from random samples. The random samples were representative of the population. This was tested by comparing their results with the actual population data results. Any remaining data used were historical data obtained from various library staff.

Back to Main Menu

Copyright © 1998
Medical College of Georgia
All rights reserved

Library   |  Medical College of Georgia

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