Article
Enhancing Access to E-books
Karen Harker
Collection Assessment
Librarian
University of North Texas
Libraries
Denton, Texas, United States
of America
Email: [email protected]
Catherine Sassen
Principal Catalog Librarian
University of North Texas
Libraries
Denton, Texas, United States
of America
Email: [email protected]
Received: 30 Sept. 2014 Accepted: 16
Dec. 2014
2015 Harker and Sassen. This
is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective
–
The objective of the study was to determine if summary notes or table of
contents notes in catalogue records are associated with the usage of e-books in
a large university library.
Methods
–
A retrospective cohort study, analyzing titles from three major collections of
e-books was employed. Titles were categorized based on the inclusion of the
MARC 505 note (table of contents) or MARC 520 note (summary) in the catalogue
record. The usage was based on standardized reports from 2012-2013. The
measures of usage were the number of titles used and the number of sections
downloaded. Statistical methods used in the analysis included correlations and
odd ratios (ORs). The usage measures were stratified by publication year and
subject to adjust for the effects of these factors on usage.
Results
–
The analysis indicates that these enhancements to the catalogue record increase
usage significantly and notably. The probability of an e-book with one of the
catalogue record enhancements being used (as indicated by the OR) was over 80%
greater than for titles lacking the enhancements, and nearly twice as high for
titles with both features. The differences were greatest among the oldest and
the most recently published e-books, and those in science and technology. The
differences were least among the e-books published between 1998 and 2007 and
those in the humanities and social sciences.
Conclusion
–
Libraries can make their collections more accessible to users by enhancing
bibliographic records with summary and table of contents notes, and by
advocating for their inclusion in vendor-supplied records.
Introduction
While librarians may
have suspected that a certain percentage of their collections would be more
heavily used, it was the ground-breaking work in the 1960s and 1970s that
brought the issue to light (Morse & Chen, 1975; Trueswell,
1968). Trueswell
(1969) found that about 20% of the collections at University of Massachusetts
and Mount Holyoke accounted for about 80% of the titles used. Galvin and Kent’s
(1977) landmark study showed that about 40% of a large academic collection at
the University of Pittsburgh had never been used. More recently, a study from
Auburn University demonstrated that these principles of print book circulation
applied as well to electronic book usage (Best, 2008). But for all the
circulation studies that quantified the distribution of usage, there have been
relatively few studies that examined why some books are used and others are
not.
The University of
North Texas Libraries embarked on a pilot of patron-driven acquisitions (PDA)
through a single vendor in 2012. Until then, the usage of individual e-books
had not received much attention by the university librarians. It was primarily
due to the direct association of usage to cost that we started carefully
tracking this information. The program was quite successful, in that the percentage
of titles used at least once was greater than for those e-books that librarians
had previously purchased. Furthermore, only 18% of librarian-selected e-books
were used again after their initial use, while 57% of PDA titles were used
multiple times. We began to wonder about
factors associated with patron usage.
E-book titles were
made available through the Libraries’ online catalogue, as well as through the
vendor’s platform, and we determined that the primary source for discovering
these titles was the catalogue. Thus, patrons who searched the catalogue
selected titles based solely on the contents of the MARC records. We considered
what characteristics of the MARC records were associated with titles that were
selected. Two characteristics were noticeable: inclusion of tables of contents
and summaries. Is inclusion of tables of contents or summary statements in the
MARC record associated with a greater likelihood of usage and the number of
uses?
Literature Review
The enhancement of
bibliographic records with tables of contents and other features dates back to
the introduction of online catalogues.
One of the earliest catalogue use studies that included this topic was
the Online Catalog Public Access Project (Matthews & Lawrence, 1984). The
Council on Library Resources (CLR) conducted this study in cooperation with the
Library of Congress (LC), OCLC, the Research Libraries Group (RLG), the
University of California Division of Library Automation, and Joseph Matthews and
Associates, a library consulting firm (Matthews, 2014). Information was
gathered from thousands of individuals through surveys and focus group
interviews. When asked about the most desired enhancements to online catalogue
records, library users specified that they would like to be able to search a
book’s table of contents, summary, and index. (Markey, 1983, p. 141).
Much later, in 2008,
OCLC researchers administered a pop-up survey to WorldCat
users and received 11,151 responses (Calhoun, Cantrell, Gallagher & Hawk,
2009, p. 7). WorldCat users were asked, "What
changes would be most helpful to you in identifying the item that you
need?", and the top five responses included summaries/abstracts (18%) and
tables of contents (18%) (Calhoun et al., 2009, p. 13). OCLC researchers also
covered this topic in a series of focus group interviews, comprised of eight
undergraduates, eight "casual searchers", and finally, eight
“scholars,” including graduate students and faculty members (Calhoun et al., 2009,
p. 6). The focus group participants indicated that summaries, abstracts and
tables of contents are helpful for "a quick verification to determine if
it is worth their time to even look at an item" (Calhoun et al., 2009, p.
17).
Libraries attempted to
address this issue as early as the 1970s through bibliographic record
enhancement projects. For the Subject Access Project, led by Cochrane (1978) at
the University of Toronto, researchers created a test database of 1,979
catalogue records enhanced with table of contents and index information. When
they performed 90 searches, they retrieved 56 relevant items in the enhanced
database compared to 14 relevant items in the regular database. Users of the enhanced database reported that
they were “able to find some items which would be impossible to locate with
L.C. [Library of Congress] subject headings” (Cochrane, p. 86). Cochrane identified several benefits to
searching enhanced records, including “greater access to the books with
relevant information” and “greater precision, insuring fewer non-relevant items
in the search output” (p. 85).
Researchers have tried
to assess the value of enhanced catalogue records by studying the circulation
rates of the items. In four separate experimental studies, researchers measured
the circulation rate for materials before and after their catalogue records
were enhanced. In the first study, no
association was found between catalogue records enhanced with only table of
contents notes and higher circulation rates (Knutson, 1991). This study
involved 291 records divided into 3 groups: records enhanced with subject
headings and table of contents information; records enhanced with table of
contents only; and records in the control group that received no enhancements.
The lack of association of enhancements with circulation rates may be explained
by the small sample size. In three other experimental studies, researchers
found that the circulation of titles increased from 5% to 25% after record
enhancement (Dinkins & Kirkland, 2006; Faiks, Rademacher & Sheehan, 2007; Chercourt
& Marshall, 2013).
In five other
investigations, researchers conducted retrospective cohort studies to determine
if library materials with enhanced catalogue records circulated more than those
with unenhanced records (Morris, 2001; Madarash-Hill
& Hill, 2004; Madarash-Hill & Hill, 2005; Tosaka & Weng, 2011;
Kirkland, 2013). In each of these studies, catalogue record enhancements were
associated with increased circulation rates. Tosaka
and Weng (2011) conducted one of the largest of these
studies at the College of New Jersey Library, involving 88,538 titles in 4
subject fields (history, social sciences, language and literature, and science
and technology). The researchers found
that titles published between 1990 and 2004 with enhanced records had 30% to
50% higher circulation than those with unenhanced records. However, record
enhancement had no effect on the circulation of titles published between 2005
and 2008. The researchers found a correlation between recent publication dates
and circulation, and suggested that library users prefer more recent
publications (Tosaka & Weng,
2001, p. 420). The researchers also found that table of contents notes were
associated with higher circulation, but not summary notes.
From the above
research, it is apparent that tables of contents provide additional keywords
that users need to identify resources. This enhancement increases user access
to library resources.
None of the nine prior
studies examined the usage of e-books in relation to catalogue record
enhancements. This study was designed to fill that research gap.
Aims
We began our
investigation by asking why library users select certain e-books but not others
after viewing their catalogue records. Based on the information gleaned from
the literature review, we focused our study on the following research
questions:
•
What is the effect of table of contents or summary
statement in the catalogue record on the number of uses of the e-book and the
probability of being used at least once?
•
What is the effect of year of publication and subject
on total uses, as well as on the probability of being used?
•
What is the effect of these catalogue record
enhancements on total uses and the probability of a title being used at least
once, controlling for publication year and subject?
From these questions,
we developed these hypotheses:
• Titles
with either the table of contents or a summary in the catalogue record would
have more uses than titles with neither of these features, controlling for
publication year and subject.
• Titles
with both table of contents and summary in the catalogue record would have more
uses, controlling for publication year and subject.
• Titles
with either table of contents or summary in the catalogue record would have a
greater probability of being used, controlling for publication year and
subject.
• Titles
with both table of contents and summary in the catalogue record would have a
greater probability of being used, controlling for publication year and
subject.
Methods
A retrospective cohort
study design was employed.
Data Collection
Three e-book
collections were included in this study: ebrary,
EBSCO Ebooks and NetLibrary. The ebrary
collection was available on the ebrary publishing
platform. The EBSCO Ebooks and NetLibrary
collections were available on the EBSCO publishing platform. The MARC records
were downloaded from the integrated library system into a set of spreadsheets.
The unit of analysis was the MARC record, which represented a unique e-book
title from a particular vendor. While no attempt was made to analyze the
distribution of titles by language, it is clear that the vast majority of the
titles were in the English language. Usage data were collected from the
platforms in the form of COUNTER Book Reports, either BR1 or BR2. The COUNTER
BR1 (supplied by EBSCO) provides the “number of successful title requests,”
while the BR2 (supplied by ebrary) reports the
“number of successful section requests” (COUNTER, 2008). The former reports the number of titles used,
while the latter reports the number of chapters or other sections downloaded.
While these are not the same measures, most platforms provide only one or the
other. Therefore, “use” in this study is defined as either a request for an
entire e-book or the downloading of chapters or other sections. The total usage
for calendar years 2012 and 2013 was used as the measure of total usage. Titles
with a usage of one or more were flagged as titles used. These two measures,
total usage (counts) and titles used (binomial), were the dependent variables
in the analysis. Only titles continuously available from January 2012 through
December 2013 were included in the study.
Other data collected
included the MARC 505 (table of contents) and the MARC 520 (summary) fields.
The records were classed in the following categories, based on the inclusion of
either or both of these fields (see Table 1).
Table 1
Categories of
Catalogue Record Enhancements (CRE)
|
Mutually-exclusive
categories |
Non-Mutually-Exclusive
categories |
|
·
Neither table of contents (TOC) nor summary fields. ·
TOC only. ·
Summary only. ·
Both TOC and summary. |
·
Neither TOC nor summary fields. ·
TOC. ·
Summary. ·
Either TOC or summary, but not both. ·
Either TOC or summary, or both. ·
Both TOC and summary. |
When considering the
inclusion of the enhanced content as a single categorical variable, the
categories must be mutually exclusive. However, this would fail to determine
the impact of having one or the other, regardless of which one. Therefore, we
conducted paired-comparisons analysis using the non-mutually exclusive
categories, and categorical and multivariate statistical analyses using the
mutually exclusive categories. The other independent variables were the
publication year, as indicated in the catalogue record (MARC 260 subfield c),
and broad subject categories based on Library of Congress (LC) class.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics
were generated to evaluate the distribution of the catalogue records for each
of the variables. These analyses included simple counts of records and
percentages by categories, and means, medians and skew of distributions of
continuous data (year of publication and usage).
Bivariate analyses were then conducted between the various factors to
identify relationships. This included
cross-tabulations of categorical data, comparisons of means and distributions
for continuous data, and correlations of the variables.
The statistical tests
were selected based on the distributions of the data. Given that the interval
data (year of publication and usage) were not normally distributed,
non-parametric tests were used. Statistical tests of inference that are based
on assumptions about the population (such as population distribution) are
called parametric statistical analyses. These methods are quite commonly used,
and include such well-known methods as the Student’s t-test and linear regression.
These methods, however, can lead to invalid results when the data does not
conform to these assumptions about the distributions, such as categorical data.
Non-parametric statistical tests of inference do not rely on assumptions about
the distribution. These “distribution free” methods are most valid for
categorical data or interval data that do not have the normal distribution or
the “bell curve”.
Odds ratios (ORs) were
calculated for the cross-tabulations of titles used by each of the categories
of catalogue record enhancement (CRE). The OR provides a simple measure of
association of the exposure (the level of CRE) and the binary outcome (used or
not used). It ranges from zero to
infinity, and a value of one indicates no difference in outcome between the two
exposure groups (has or does not have the CRE). A value greater than one
indicates a greater probability of use for a title with that level of CRE. A
value less than one indicates that the title without that feature has greater
probability of being used. The OR includes a 95% confidence interval (95% CI).
The OR is calculated
by dividing the odds of titles used among those with a catalogue record
enhancement by the odds of titles used among those without that feature (see
Equation 1). The result is a positive number ranging from zero to infinity; the
closer to 1.0, the more similar the probability of usage is between the two
groups. An OR between 0 and 1 indicates that the items lacking tables of
contents (TOCs) are more likely to be used, while an OR above 1 indicates items
with the TOCs have greater probability of being used. A 95% confidence interval
is used to test the OR against random variation. If the interval spans above
and below 1.0, then there is too much variation in the measure for the estimate
to be valid. ORs are measures of comparison of two non-overlapping groups.
Figure 1 provides a summary of the groups that are compared.
|
Outcome of Interest (Used) |
Not Outcome of Interest (Not Used) |
|
|
Exposed (Has CRE) |
a |
b |
|
Not Exposed (Does not have CRE) |
c |
d |
Figure 1
Table (2x2) of exposures and outcomes
Equation 1
Odds Ratio
For comparing total
uses across the factors, the Kruskal-Wallis rank test
was used to test for significance. This is a non-parametric test of
significance of differences in the distributions of uses between the two or more
groups (with and without the CRE).
To control for
differences due to subject coverage, the titles were categorized into one of
three broad disciplines: humanities, social sciences and STEM (science,
technology, engineering and mathematics). These categories are similar to those
used by Michael Levine-Clark (2014) in his recent analysis of e-books from
multiple collections. The only difference was the inclusion of ranges on
geography (LC Class G), which we split between STEM and social sciences (see
Table 2). Differences in the mean publication year and the inclusion of
catalogue record enhancements between these broad disciplines were examined. In
addition, we analyzed differences in the mean usage and ORs of being used to
determine the effect of discipline on usage.
To control for year of
publication, the titles were grouped by year, with roughly the same number of
titles in each group, and the mean uses, as well as ORs of titles used, were
compared between the groups. Differences in the means and the ORs between the
groups were indications of the amount of influence the year of publication had
on the effects of catalogue record enhancements on usage.
Table 2
Broad Disciplines
|
Humanities |
Social Sciences |
STEM |
|
B (Philosophy,
Religion, excl. BF) C, D, E, F (History) M (Music) N (Fine Arts) P (Language and
Literature |
BF (Psychology) GN-GV (Human
Geography) H (Social Sciences) J (Political
Science) K (Law) L (Education) U, V (Military,
Naval Sciences) |
G, GA-GF (Geography) Q (Science) R (Medicine) S (Agriculture) T (Technology) |
* p<0.05
Results
The data set used in
the final analysis included a total of 76,467 records from 3 collections. About 32% of the titles (24,050) had TOCs in
the catalogue records, and only about 8% of the titles (6,174) included
summaries. The distribution of titles with TOCs and summaries was not equal
across platforms. Similarly, the collections varied in the mean and median publication
years, with titles from the EBSCO or NetLibrary sets
more than ten years older than the ebrary titles.
Usage by Catalogue
Record Enhancements (CRE)
There were apparent
differences in the publication year, mean usage, and number of titles used between
the groups that have and do not have the enhanced catalogue content (see Table
3). Those with the added content were more recently published, and had much
higher mean usage and greater rate of titles used. A wide range of analytical
techniques was used to determine if these differences were due to publication
year, subject, or chance.
The simplest method
was a cross-tabulation of titles used by the exposure (i.e., the enhanced
catalogue content). Using such a method, we can provide an OR measure that
describes the probability that a title having the exposure (TOC or summary in
catalogue record) was used against a title lacking the exposure.
Most of the ORs were
significant, favouring the inclusion of at least one
of the catalogue record enhancements, and the highest OR favoured
having both (see Table 3). The analysis shows that a title with at least one of
the features was over 80% more likely to be used than those with neither, and
over twice as likely if it has both features. Titles having the keyword summary
only, however, were not significantly more likely to be used. It is clear that
TOCs and summaries in the catalogue record had a positive effect on the title
being used at least once. The publication year in all of these groups, however,
was also associated with the inclusion of catalogue record enhancements, and
must be taken into consideration before concluding that the enhancements were,
indeed, associated with increased usage.
Table 3
Usage by Catalogue Record Enhancement
|
CRE Groups |
# Titles in the CRE
Group |
# Titles not in the CRE Group |
Uses per Title in
the CRE Group |
Uses per Title not in the CRE Group |
% Titles used in CRE
Group |
% Titles not in the CRE Group used |
OR (95% CI)) |
|
Has TOC only |
19,704 |
56,763 |
11.3 |
3.8 |
26.4% |
16.2% |
1.9* (1.8-1.9) |
|
Has TOC |
24,050 |
52,417 |
14 |
1.9 |
28.3% |
14.4% |
2.3* (2.25-2.4) |
|
Has summary
only |
1,828 |
74,639 |
20.9 |
4.4 |
32.0% |
17.6% |
2.2* (2.1-2.3) |
|
Has summary |
6,174 |
70,293 |
8 |
5.7 |
20.0% |
18.8% |
1.1 (0.96-1.2) |
|
Has either but not
both |
21,532 |
54,935 |
11 |
3.7 |
25.8% |
16.0% |
1.8* (1.75-1.9) |
|
Has either or both |
25,878 |
50,589 |
13.6 |
1.7 |
27.7% |
14.2% |
2.3* (2.2-2.4) |
|
Has both |
4,346 |
72,121 |
26.3 |
4.5 |
37.0% |
17.7% |
2.7* (2.6-2.9) |
* p<0.05
Distribution by
Publication Year
Because the
publication year had been identified as a key factor in usage of items, we
evaluated the distribution of e-books by publication year (Tosaka
& Weng, 2011, p. 419; Morris, 2001, p. 34). Interestingly, the distribution of
publication years was bimodal (two “humps”) (see Figure 2). There is a drop in
the number of titles between 2003 and 2008.
This, combined with the severe skewing to the left, indicated that
statistical tests based on normal distributions would not be appropriate. The
titles were then grouped by publication year into four approximately equal
groups based on their distribution: <=1998, 1999-2001, 2002-2007, >=2008.
The distribution of
catalogue enhancements varied across the publication year groups. Generally,
the more recently published books had greater rates of these enhancements, as
well as lower rates of only one of the enhancements (see Table 4).
Similar to Tosaka and Weng (2011, p.
417-418), we determined that the e-book records with TOCs and those with
summaries tended to be more recent than those without (see Table 3). To
determine if this variation could be random, we used the non-parametric tests,
Mann-Whitney U and Kolmogonov-Smirnov tests,
comparing the mean publication years between those with and without the TOCs,
and with and without summaries. In addition, we ran Kruskal-Wallis
one-way ANOVA, comparing the distribution of publication years across all four
groups. The null hypothesis for this test was that the distributions of
publication years were similar for those with and lacking content enhancements
in the catalogue records.
Figure 2
Distribution of titles by publication year
Table 4
Distribution of CRE by Publication Year
|
Categories |
<1998 |
1998-2001 |
2002-2007 |
>=2008 |
|
Has TOC |
5.6% |
8.3% |
26% |
60.1% |
|
Has Summary |
8.4% |
11.3% |
22.5% |
15% |
|
Has TOC Only |
6.5% |
9.4% |
27.4% |
56.7% |
|
Has Summary Only |
25.5% |
30.7% |
10.6% |
33.1% |
|
Either TOC, not both |
8.1% |
11.2% |
26% |
54.7% |
|
Either or Both |
7% |
9.9% |
24.9% |
54.2% |
|
Both TOC and Summary |
1.4% |
3.4% |
19.6% |
75.7% |
The results indicated
that the differences in year of publication between having and not having the
content enhancements were not likely due to chance (p<0.001) (see Table 5).
This clearly indicated that publication years were different between the two
exposed groups of bibliographic records.
Table 5
Median Publication
Year by Groups
|
|
# Titles |
Median Publication
Year |
|
Overall |
73,936 |
2002 |
|
Has Neither |
48,104 (65%) |
1999 |
|
Has Summary Only |
1,789 (2.4%) |
2000 |
|
Has TOC Only |
19,697 (26.6%) |
2009 |
|
Has Both |
4,346 (6%) |
2010 |
Table 6
Usage by Publication
Year Group
|
Publication Year Group |
Mean Uses |
% Used |
|
<1998 |
0.45 |
1.6% |
|
1998-2001 |
0.89 |
2.2% |
|
2002-2007 |
3.09 |
2.7% |
|
>=2008 |
18.31 |
4.6% |
Table 7
Usage by Broad
Discipline
|
n (%) |
Mean Uses |
% Used |
OR (95% CI) |
|
|
Humanities |
28,735 (38%) |
4.5 |
2.4% |
1.2 (1.1-1.3) |
|
Social Sciences |
29,778 (39%) |
6.1 |
3.1% |
0.8 (0.73-0.87) |
|
STEM |
17,684 (23%) |
7.1 |
2.6% |
1.07 (0.96-1.2) |
|
Overall |
76,197 (100%) |
5.7 |
2.7% |
As Bucknell
(2010, p. 128-129) documented, we found that publication year was also a factor
in usage of e-books (see Table 6). The simplest way to determine this was
through correlation analysis. Because of the severe skewedness of both usage
and publication year, the statistic used was Spearman's correlation factor,
which, although statistically significant, was quite low (Spearman's r=0.191)
on a scale of -1 to +1. Analyzing usage by publication year group revealed more
substantive differences.
The usage of these
groups was compared using the non-parametric statistical test, Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA, setting the significance
level at 0.01 and the confidence interval at 99%. This test allows comparisons
of usage across multiple groups. The null hypothesis in this analysis was that
the usage would be similar across all four publication year groups. This null
hypothesis was rejected (p<=0.001), indicating that usage was clearly
associated with publication year; more recent titles garnered more uses than
earlier titles.
Given the association
of publication year on the exposure variables (catalogue record enhancements)
and on the outcome (usage), it was clear that publication year could confound
the effect of the catalogue record enhancements on usage, making it difficult
to tell the difference between the effects of the age of the book and those of
the catalogue record enhancements
Usage Across Broad Disciplines
As mentioned above,
the titles were categorized into one of three broad disciplines based on their
LC classification. There was a negligible set (270 titles, 0.4%) that were not
categorized due to various reasons. The distribution of titles across these
three categories was not even, with just under 40% in both humanities and
social sciences, and just over 20% in STEM. Usage of titles within each
category varied slightly (see Table 7), with STEM titles having the most mean
uses per title (7) and social sciences titles having a greater percentage of
titles used at least once (3%). While
the ORs of the paired-comparisons of these groups were statistically
significant, the size of their effect (20% greater or lesser odds of usage) was
not very notable. It appears that broad discipline may have had a slight effect
on usage.
Adjusting for
Publication Year and Broad Discipline
To understand the
effect of publication year and broad discipline on the odds of being used, we
stratified the analysis by publication year group, and separately discipline,
and compared the ORs (see Table 10). Our hypothesis was that the OR of use
would increase across all publication year groups with more catalogue content
enhancement. Only the earliest and most recent titles (publication year either
before 1998 or after 2007) demonstrated this pattern (see Table 8). By
adjusting for publication year, there did not appear to be a clear association
between the catalogue record enhancements and use, except for oldest and most
recent publications.
The inclusion of the
catalogue record enhancements varied across the three broad disciplines, with
social sciences having the most and STEM having the least percentage of
enhanced records (see Table 9).
To determine the
combined effect of catalogue record enhancements and broad discipline on usage,
we examined the ORs comparing rates of usage by catalogue record enhancement
for each discipline separately. If the ORs did not differ substantially across
the disciplines, then the effect of discipline was minimal. It was apparent
that the effect of catalogue record enhancements on usage did not vary between
the humanities and social sciences; however, the effect of having TOCs or both
was notably greater on STEM titles (see Table 10).
Table 8
Odds Ratios of Usage by Publication Year Group
|
Categories |
<1998 |
1998-2001 |
2002-2007 |
>=2008 |
|
Has TOC |
1.6 |
1.3 |
1.1 |
1.44 |
|
Has Summary |
2.2 |
0.8 |
0.7 |
1.8 |
|
Has TOC Only |
1.7 |
1.3 |
1.2 |
0.9 |
|
Has Summary Only |
2.3 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
1.4 |
|
Either TOC, not both |
1.9 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
0.9 |
|
Either or Both |
1.9 |
1.2 |
1.1 |
1.6 |
|
Both TOC and Summary |
1.0 |
0.6 |
0.6 |
1.8 |
Table 9
Distribution of CRE by Discipline
|
Catalogue Record
Enhancement |
Humanities |
Social Sciences |
STEM |
Overall |
|
Has TOC Only |
27% |
29% |
20% |
26% |
|
Has Summary Only |
3% |
2% |
3% |
2% |
|
Has TOC |
32% |
35% |
24% |
32% |
|
Has Summary |
8% |
8% |
8% |
8% |
|
Has Either, Not Both |
29% |
31% |
23% |
28% |
|
Has Either or Both |
34% |
37% |
28% |
34% |
|
Has Both |
5% |
7% |
5% |
6% |
Table 10
Odds Ratios of Usage
by CRE and Discipline
|
Catalogue Record
Enhancement |
Humanities |
Social Sciences |
STEM |
Overall |
|
Has TOC Only |
1.5 |
1.5 |
2 |
1.86 |
|
Has Summary Only |
1.6 |
1.7 |
2.6 |
1.08 |
|
Has TOC |
1.8 |
1.8 |
2.8 |
2.34 |
|
Has Summary |
2.1 |
1.9 |
1.1 |
2.19 |
|
Has Either, Not Both |
1.5 |
1.6 |
1.9 |
1.82 |
|
Has Either or Both |
1.9 |
1.9 |
2.7 |
2.31 |
|
Has Both |
2.2 |
1.9 |
3.5 |
2.73 |
Discussion
Based on previous
studies, it was apparent that publication year and subject could also affect
usage (Tosaka & Weng,
2011, pp. 419-420; Morris, 2001, p. 34). We controlled for these factors by
stratifying our analysis across different year groups and broad disciplines.
Our primary outcomes (dependent variables) were number of titles used at least
once, and the total number of uses.
Similar to Tosaka and Weng (2011, pp.
418-421) and Morris (2001, pp. 33-34), we found a direct correlation between
inclusion of catalogue record enhancements in the MARC record and number of
uses. We found that the probability of an e-book with one of the catalogue
record enhancements being used (as indicated by the OR) was over 80% greater
than for titles lacking the enhancements, and nearly twice as high for titles
with both features. The differences were greatest among the oldest and the most
recently published books, and in science and technology, and least among the
books published between 1998 and 2007 and those in the humanities and social
sciences. The reasons for this may be due to the distribution of the CREs being
more balanced in the latter year groups (see Table 4), or perhaps due to the decrease
in the distribution of titles from this year group (see Figure 2).
The limitations of
which we were aware included the limited number of e-book platforms represented
(two), the confluence of COUNTER BR1 (titles used) with BR2 (sections used)
measures, the effects of assigned readings on usage, and any preference by the patrons
for platform. When instructors request the library purchase titles for assigned
readings, our policy is to purchase these titles as e-books with a licence to allow multiple users access. The data that identified such titles was not
available for analysis, so this could be a factor in the results. Finally,
while patrons may express their preference for e-book platforms in surveys and
usability studies, demonstrated preference by platform through purposeful
selection and non-selection should be examined more carefully.
Given the large sample
size and the statistical analyses, the results demonstrate a clear and
consistent relationship between catalogue record enhancements and e-book usage
of any kind. Our next step is to conduct
an experimental study, adding such content to randomly selected titles that had
not been used. If an increase in the
usage of these titles results, we will plan to add into the workflow the
addition of these fields to the catalogue records. We also plan to extend this
study to the use of printed materials, particularly those housed in remote
storage facilities. We would like to know if adding such content will increase
their likelihood of continued usage even after resources are removed from the
open stacks. Finally, it would be interesting to examine the effects of
providing bibliographic records with thumbnail cover images on usage.
Conclusion
Our primary reason for
conducting this study was to better understand why certain e-books were used
and others were not. Because usage data
indicated that users discovered most titles in the catalogue, we focused on
differences in the MARC catalogue record.
The inclusion of enhancements to the catalogue records was our first
target, notably the MARC 505 field for tables of contents (TOCs) and the MARC
520 field for summary statements. Our literature review indicated that such
enhancements could be associated with increased likelihood of being used in
print, as well as increased number of times being used. This study was a
retrospective cohort study, where titles were categorized and their usage
analyzed based on the inclusion of defined catalogue record enhancements. One
cohort had MARC 505, another had MARC 520, and a final had neither. From the first two cohorts, we analyzed
subgroups, including those that had one or the other but not both, and those
with both. Because of the size of our
collection (more than 75,000 titles, of which nearly 10,000 were used at least
once), we were able to conduct subgroup analyses using robust statistical
methods and significance criteria.
By studying
information seeking behaviour, it is possible to
discover catalogue record enhancements that have facilitated library users’
research. By adding these enhancements to catalogue records, and by advocating
for their inclusion in vendor-supplied records, libraries can make their
catalogues and collections more accessible to users.
References
Best, R. D. (2008). The University of
Pittsburgh study in an electronic environment: Have e-books changed usage
patterns of monographs? Acquisitions
Librarian, 19 (3-4), 311-323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08963570802026369
Bucknell, T. (2010). The ‘big deal’ approach to
acquiring e-books: A usage-based study, Serials,
23(2), 126-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1629/23126
Calhoun, K. Cantrell, J., Gallagher, M., &
Hawk, J. (2009). Online catalogs: What
users and librarians want.
Dublin, Ohio: OCLC.
Chercourt, M. & Marshall, L. (2013). Making
keywords work: Connecting patrons to resources through enhanced bibliographic
records. Technical Services Quarterly, 30(3),
285-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2013.785786
Cochrane, P.A. (1978). Books are for use: Final report of the Subject Access Project to the
Council on Library Resources. Syracuse, N.Y.: School of Information
Studies, Syracuse University.
COUNTER (2008). COUNTER code of practice:
Journals and databases (Release 3). Retrieved from http://www.project.counter.org/r3/Release3D9.pdf
Dinkins, D., & Kirkland, L. N. (2006).
It's what's inside that counts: Adding contents notes to bibliographic records
and its impact on circulation. College
& Undergraduate Libraries, 13(1), 59-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J106v13n01_07
Faiks, A., Radermacher,
A., & Sheehan, A. (2007). What about
the book: Google-izing the catalog with tables of
contents. [Special issue] Library
Philosophy & Practice (June), 1-12.
Galvin, T. J., & Kent, A. (1977). Use of a university library collection: A
progress report on a Pittsburgh study. Library
Journal, 102(20), 2317-2320.
Kirkland, L. N. (2013). The relationship of
metadata to item circulation. Cataloging
& Classification Quarterly 51(5), 510-531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2012.762963
Knutson, G. S. (1991). Subject enhancement:
Report on an experiment. College &
Research Libraries, 52(1), 65-79.
Levine-Clark, M. (2014, March) E-book usage:
Navigating the swell of information. Paper presented at the 9th Electronic
Resources and Libraries Conference, Austin, Texas. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/MichaelLevineClark/levineclark-michael-diving-into-ebook-usage-assessing-the-swell-of-information-electronic-resources-libraries-austin-march-17-2014
Madarash-Hill, C. & Hill, J. B. (2004). Enhancing
access to IEEE conference proceedings: A case study in the application of IEEE Xplore full text and table of contents enhancements. Science & Technology Libraries, 24(3/4),
389-399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J122v24n03_09
Madarash-Hill, C. & Hill, J. B. (2005).
Electronically enriched enhancements in catalog records: A use study of books
described on records with URL enhancements versus those without. Technical Services Quarterly, 23(2),
19-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J124v23n02_02
Markey, K. (1983) Online
catalog use: Results of surveys and focus group interviews in several
libraries. Final report to the Council on Library Resources (Vol. 2). Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library
Center.
Matthews, J. R. (2014). Consulting services.
Retrieved from http://www.joematthews.org/consulting-services.html
Matthews, J. R., & Lawrence, G. S. (1984).
Further analysis of the CLR Online Catalog Project. Information Technology and Libraries, 3(4), 354-376.
Morris, R. C.
(2001). Online tables of contents for books:
Effect on usage. Bulletin of the Medical
Library Association, 89(1): 29-36.
Morse, P. M., & Chen, C. (1975). Using
circulation desk data to obtain unbiased estimates of book use. Library Quarterly, 45(2), 179-194.
Tosaka, Y., & Weng, C. (2011).
Reexamining content-enriched access: Its effect on usage and discovery. College & Research Libraries, 72(5),
412-427. http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl-137
Trueswell, R. W. (1968). Some circulation data from a research
library. College & Research Libraries,
29(6), 493-495.
Trueswell, R. W. (1969). Some behavioral patterns of library
users: The 80/20 rule. Wilson Library
Bulletin, 43(5), 458-461.