Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (Journal)
Not a member yet
1552 research outputs found
Sort by
An Analysis of Student Performance at the Intersection of Diversity and Information Literacy
No full textAbstract
Objective – When teaching Information Literacy (IL) concepts, instructors often have no knowledge about the background or previous IL exposure of the students they are teaching.
This study aims to create a holistic picture of the students at a large Midwestern United States university in a first year introductory course on the design process for solving engineering problems.
Methods – Institutional data and course level data were traced and linked to individual students in an introduction to design thinking first year course. This course is at a major high research activity institution in the Midwestern United States. From a total course size of 650, institutional and course level data of 127 students were selected randomly and analyzed. Some data points are self-reported and some data points are performance-based.
Results – Underrepresented minorities (URMs) had a higher increase in IL score from assignment 1 to assignment 3 than non-URM students. However, non-URMs performed higher on both the first and the last assignments. Students in concurrent IL designated courses had a higher increase from assignments 1 to 3 than those not in simultaneous IL designated courses. Black and international students had the highest increases from assignments 1 to 3 of any demographic. Regarding IL, the fact that none of the students had been exposed to much IL instruction justified continued collaboration in the course between the instructor of record and the IL specialist. There were significantly negative correlations between the final grade and first-generation status. Legacy students also performed more poorly from assignments 1 to 3.
Conclusion – Students are more diverse in a single classroom setting than presumed prior to research; therefore, our instructional practices should be diverse and inclusive, as well. More preparation work and fact finding should be conducted by library faculty and instructors to facilitate the learning of the students, and not just the act of teaching. Librarians could ask for more information about the course demographics and respond accordingly. Librarians should also be properly trained in instructional practices to be better equipped to meet the expectations and challenges of teaching a diverse class
Exploring the Impact of Individualized Research Consultations Using Pre and Posttesting in an Academic Library: A Mixed Methods Study
No full textAbstract
Objective – Academic librarians consistently offer individualized help to students and researchers. Few studies have empirically examined the impact of individualized research consultations (IRCs). For many librarians, IRCs are an integral part of their teaching repertoire. However, without any evidence of an IRC’s effectiveness or value, one might ask if it’s worth investing so much time and effort. Our study explored the impact of IRCs on students\u27 search techniques and self-perceived confidence levels. We attempted to answer the following questions: 1) Do IRCs improve students’ information searching techniques, including the proper use of keywords and/or subject headings, the accurate use of Boolean operators, and the appropriate selection of specialized resources/databases? 2) Do IRCs influence students’ confidence level in performing effective search strategies?
Methods – Our study used a mixed-methods approach. Our participants were students from the Faculties of Health Sciences and Medicine at the University of Ottawa, completing an undergraduate or graduate degree, and undertaking a research or thesis project. Participants were invited to complete two questionnaires, one before and one after meeting with a librarian. The questionnaires consisted of open-ended and multiple choice questions, which assessed students\u27 search techniques, their self-perceived search techniques proficiency and their confidence level. A rubric was used to score students\u27 open-ended questions, and self-reflective questions were coded and analyzed for content using the software QSR NVivo.
Results – Twenty-nine completed pre and posttests were gathered from February to September 2016. After coding the answers using the rubric, two paired-samples t-tests were conducted. The first t-test shows that students’ ability to use appropriate keywords was approaching statistical significance. The second t-test showed a statistically significant increase in students’ ability to use appropriate search strings from the pretest to the posttest. We performed a last paired-samples t-test to measure students’ confidence level before and after the appointment, and a statistically significant increase in confidence level was found.
Conclusion – Out of three paired t-tests performed, two showed a statistically significant difference from the pretest to the posttest, with one t-test approaching statistical significance. The analysis of our qualitative results also supports the statement that IRCs have a positive real impact on students’ search techniques and their confidence levels. Future research may explore specific techniques to improve search strategies across various disciplines, tips to improve confidence levels, and exploring the viewpoint of librarians.  
Librarians’ Reported Systematic Review Completion Time Ranges Between 2 and 219 Total Hours with Most Variance due to Information Processing and Instruction
No full textA Review of:
Bullers, K., Howard, A. M., Hanson, A., Kearns, W. D., Orriola, J. J., Polo, R. L., & Sakmar, K. A. (2018). It takes longer than you think: Librarian time spent on systematic review tasks. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106(2), 198-207. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.323
Abstract
Objective – To investigate how long it takes for medical librarians to complete steps toward completion of a systematic review and to determine if the time differs based on factors including years of experience as a medical librarian and experience completing systematic reviews.
Design – Survey research as a questionnaire disseminated via email distribution lists.
Setting – At institutions that are members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) and librarians at Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) or American Osteopathic Association (AOA) member institutions.
Subjects – Librarians of member institutions who have worked on systematic reviews.
Methods – On December 11, 2015, AAHSL library directors and librarian members of AAMC and AOA were sent the survey and the recommendation to forward the survey to librarians on staff who have worked on systematic reviews. Reminders were sent on December 17, 2015, and the survey closed for participation on January 7, 2016. Participants who had worked on a systematic review within the past five years were asked to indicate experience by the number of systematic reviews completed, years of experience as a medical librarian, and how much time was spent, in hours, on the following: initial consultations/meetings; developing and testing the initial search strategy; translating the strategy for other databases; documenting the process; delivering the search results; writing their part of the manuscript; other tasks they could identify; and any instruction (i.e., training they provided to team members necessary for completion of the systematic review). Participants also further broke down the amount of their time searching, by percentage of time, in various resources, including literature indexes/databases, included studies’ references, trial registers, grey literature, and hand searching. Participants were also given space to add additional comments. The researchers reported summary statistics for phase one and, for phase two, excluded outliers and performed exploratory factor analysis, beginning with principal components analysis (PCA), followed by a varimax rotation, to determine if there was a relationship between the time on tasks and experience.
Main Results – Of the 185 completed responses, 105 were analyzed for phase one because 80 responses were excluded due to missing data or no recent experience with a systematic review. The average respondent had between 1 and 6 years of experience: 1-3 years in librarianship (49.5%) and 4-6 years (23.8%). The time reported for completion of all tasks ranged from 2 to 219 hours with a mean of 30.7 hours. Most of the variance (61.6%) was caused by “information processing” and “interpersonal instruction/training” components. Search strategy development and testing had the highest average time at 8.4 hours. Within that category, databases accounted for 78.7% of time searching, followed by other searching methods. For remaining systematic review tasks, their averages were as follows: translating research (5.4 hours), delivering results (4.3 hours), conducting preliminary consultations (3.9 hours), instruction (3.8 hours), documentation (3.0 hours), additional tasks that were written-in by respondents (2.2 hours), and writing the manuscript (1.8 hours). The most common written-in tasks were development of inclusion/exclusion criteria, critical appraisal, and deduplication. Other write-ins included retrieving full-text articles, developing protocols, and selecting a journal for publishing the systematic review.
For the second phase of analysis, 12 responses were excluded as extreme outliers, and the remaining 93 responses were analyzed to detect a relationship between experience and time on task. Prior systematic review experience correlated with shorter times performing instruction, consultation, and translation of searches. However, librarian years of experience affected the percentage of time on task, where greater years of experience led to more time spent consulting and instructing than the percentage for librarians with fewer years of experience. Librarians with greater than 7 years of experience skewed trends toward shorter time on task, and, with their data excluded, years of experience showed weak positive correlation with instruction and consultation.
Conclusion – Because the average librarian participating on systematic review teams has had few prior experiences and because the times can vary widely based on assigned roles, duties, years of experience, and complexity of research question, it is not advised to establish expectations for librarians’ time on task. This may be why library administrators have disparate expectations of librarians’ involvement in systematic reviews and find it difficult to allocate and anticipate staff time on systematic review projects. While it may not be possible to set specific overarching guidelines for librarians’ expected time on systematic review tasks, librarian supervisors and library directors planning for their staff to offer systematic review services should work to develop extensive understanding of the steps for conducting and assessing systematic reviews in order to better estimate time commitments
Naming Specific Adverse Effects Improves Relative Recall for Search Filters Identifying Literature on Surgical Interventions in MEDLINE and Embase
No full textA Review of:
Golder, S., Wright, K., & Loke, Y.K. (2018). The development of search filters for adverse effects of surgical interventions in MEDLINE and Embase. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 35(2), 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12213
Abstract
Objective – “To develop and validate search filters for MEDLINE and Embase for the adverse effects of surgical interventions” (p.121).
Design – From a universe of systematic reviews, the authors created “an unselected cohort…where relevant articles are not chosen because of the presence of adverse effects terms” (p.123). The studies referenced in the cohort reviews were extracted to create an overall citation set. From this, three equal-sized sets of studies were created by random selection, and used for: development of a filter (identifying search terms); evaluation of the filter (testing how well it worked); and validation of the filter (assessing how well it retrieved relevant studies).
Setting – Systematic reviews of adverse effects from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), published in 2014.
Subjects – 358 studies derived from the references of 19 systematic reviews (352 available in MEDLINE, 348 available in Embase).
Methods – Word and phrase frequency analysis was performed on the development set of articles to identify a list of terms, starting with the term creating the highest recall from titles and abstracts of articles, and continuing until adding new search terms produced no more new records recalled. The search strategy thus developed was then tested on the evaluation set of articles. In this case, using the strategy recalled all of the articles which could be obtained using generic search terms; however, adding specific search terms (such as the MeSH term “surgical site infection”) improved recall. Finally, the strategy incorporating both generic and specific search terms for adverse effects was used on the validation set of articles. Search strategies used are included in the article, as is a list in the discussion section of MeSH and Embase indexing terms specific to or suggesting adverse effects.
Main Results – “In each case the addition of specific adverse effects terms could have improved the recall of the searches” (p. 127). This was true for all six cases (development, evaluation and validation study sets, for each of MEDLINE and Embase) in which specific terms were added to searches using generic terms, and recall percentages compared.
Conclusion – While no filter can deliver 100% of items in a given standard set of studies on adverse effects (since title and abstract fields may not contain any indication of relevance to the topic), adding specific adverse effects terms to generic ones while developing filters is shown to improve recall for surgery-related adverse effects (similarly to drug-related adverse effects). The use of filters requires user engagement and critical analysis; at the same time, deploying well-constructed filters can have many benefits, including: helping users, especially clinicians, get a search started; managing a large and unwieldy set of citations retrieved; and to suggest new search strategies
Why are They Not Visiting the Library? Understanding Political Science Postgraduate Students
No full textNo abstract
Publons Peer Evaluation Metrics are not Reliable Measures of Quality or Impact
No full textA Review of:
Ortega, J. L. (2019). Exploratory analysis of Publons metrics and their relationship with bibliometric and altmetric impact. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 71(1), 124– 136. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-06-2018-0153
Abstract
Objective – To analyze the relationship between scholars’ qualitative opinion of publications using Publons metrics and bibliometric and altmetric impact measures.
Design – Comparative, quantitative data set analysis.
Setting – Maximally exhaustive set of research articles retrievable from Publons.
Subjects – 45,819 articles retrieved from Publons in January 2018.
Methods – Author extracted article data from Publons and joined them (using the DOI) with data from three altmetric providers: Altmetric.com, PlumX, and Crossref Event Data. When providers gave discrepant results for the same metric, the maximum value was used. Publons data are described, and correlations are calculated between Publons metrics and altmetric and bibliometric indicators.
Main Results – In terms of coverage, Publons is biased in favour of life sciences and subject areas associated with health and medical sciences. Open access publishers are also over-represented. Articles reviewed in Publons overwhelmingly have one or two pre-publication reviews and only one post-publication review. Furthermore, the metrics of significance and quality (rated on a 1 to 10 scale) are almost identically distributed, suggesting that users may not distinguish between them. Pearson correlations between Publons metrics and bibliometric and altmetric indicators are very weak and not significant.
Conclusion – The biases in Publons coverage with respect to discipline and publisher support earlier research and suggest that the willingness to publish one’s reviews differs according to research area. Publons metrics are problematic as research quality indicators. Most publications have only a single post-publication review, and the absence of any significant disparity between the scores of significance and quality suggest the constructs are being conflated when in fact they should be measuring different things. The correlation analysis indicates that peer evaluation in Publons is not a measure of a work’s quality and impact
Libraries May Teach Some Skills through Mobile Application Games
No full textA Review of:
Kaneko, K., Saito, Y., Nohara, Y., Kudo, E., & Yamada, M. (2018). Does physical activity enhance learning performance? Learning effectiveness of game-based experiential learning for university library instruction. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(5), 569-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.06.002
Abstract
Objective – To understand the impact of a mobile application game for library knowledge acquisition, task performance, and the process of learning.
Design – The main experiment included a pretest, learning experience, post-test, and a questionnaire. One month later, a post-experiment was conducted, including a test of “declarative knowledge” and a behavioural test.
Setting – Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan
Subjects – 36 first-year undergraduate students, of which 25 were female and 11 were male. Students were divided into experimental and control groups. 32 students completed the study.
Methods – In the main experiment, students responded to the same 20 question pre-test on library use, and then both groups participated in learning experiences designed to convey knowledge about using the library. The control group’s learning setting was a web-based tutorial about the library. The experimental group’s learning setting was “Library Adventures: Unveil the Hidden Mysteries!” a “game-based learning environment” developed by the researchers (Kaneko, Saito, Nohara, Kudo, & Yamada, 2015, p. 404), which required students to complete activities by physically moving through the library. For both groups, learning content related to local library procedures, like hours, arrangement of collections, and methods for locating books and articles. The game collected data that the authors analyzed using statistical methods in an attempt to validate quizzes that were embedded in the game. After finishing the learning experience, all students completed the 20-question post-test, and then responded to the Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS), a questionnaire designed to gauge learning motivation using the Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction (ARCS) model. One month following the main experiment, all students took a test of declarative knowledge and completed a skills test.
Main Results – Experimental and control group students gained about the same level of declarative knowledge. All students lost some knowledge in the one-month gap between the main and post-experiment. Students who had learned through Library Adventure were able to borrow a journal and locate a newspaper article more effectively than the control group. In contrast, tutorial users made study room reservations more quickly than the experimental group. More significantly, the IMMS instrument demonstrated that game-based learners scored higher in attention, relevance, and satisfaction than tutorial-based learners. Experimental and control group participants demonstrated the same level of confidence.
Conclusion – While inconclusive about the effectiveness of games versus tutorials for acquisition and retention of knowledge, the authors concluded that game-based instructional content may foster greater learner engagement, aiding some students in understanding how to use the library in a manner superior to web-based tutorials. Librarians and instructional designers developing game-based learning experiences for novice library users may find this research informative
First-Year Students and the Framework: Using Topic Modeling to Analyze Student Understanding of the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education
No full textAbstract
Objective – The Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education has generated a significant amount of discussion among academic librarians; however, few have discussed the potential impact on learning when students interact directly with the Framework itself. At the University of Notre Dame, over 1,900 first-year students completed an information literacy assignment in their required first-year experience course. Students read a condensed version of the Framework, then wrote a response discussing how a frame of their choosing was reflected in an assigned reading. The goal of this exploratory study was to determine if the students demonstrated an understanding of the themes and concepts in the Framework based on this assignment.
Methods – Topic modeling, a method for discovering topics contained in a corpus of text, was used to explore the themes that emerged in the students’ responses to this assignment and assess the degree to which they connect to frames in the Framework. The model receives no information about the Framework prior to the analysis; it only uses the students’ words to form topics.
Results – The responses formed several topics that are recognizable as related to the frames from the Framework, suggesting that students were able to engage effectively and meaningfully with the language of the Framework. Because the topic model does not know anything about the Framework, the fact that the responses formed topics that are recognizable as frames suggests that students internalized the concepts in the Framework well enough to express them in their own writing.
Conclusion – This research provides insight regarding the impact that the Framework may have on student understanding of information literacy concepts
Green Deposit Rates in LIS Taylor & Francis Journals: Are Librarians “Practicing What They Preach?”
No full textA Review of:
Emery, J. (2017). How green is our valley: Five year study of selected LIS journals from Taylor & Francis for green open access. Insights, 31(23). http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.406
Abstract
Objective – To investigate the green deposit rate for articles published in five Taylor & Francis LIS journals.
Design – Content analysis.
Setting – The author conducted an analysis of the following journals: Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, Collection Management, College & Undergraduate Libraries, Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship and Journal of Library Administration.
Subjects – 87 articles/columns in Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 78 in Collection Management, 134 in College & Undergraduate Libraries, 108 in Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, and 264 in Journal of Library Administration.
Methods – The author chose five Taylor & Francis LIS journals to analyze over a period of five years for the green open access article deposit rate. The author selected Taylor & Francis journals due to the publisher’s policy of not requiring an embargo period on LIS journals. The specific journal titles were selected based on the author’s perception of their relevance to a broad array of academic libraries. The author determined if green deposit had occurred by first using the “OA Button” on the article’s homepage to locate the full text. If nothing was found, the author then searched each author’s institutional repository using the DOI. If the full text was still not located using this method, then a Google Scholar search for the full text was performed.
Main Results – The author found that the full text was available for 22% of the 671 total articles included in the study, which was significantly below the author’s proposed success rate of 50%.
Conclusion – The results of this study indicate that a relatively low number of articles in the LIS field are available via open access, even though there were no restrictions from the publisher on green deposits. Some potential influencing factors for the low deposit rate include lack of encouragement from administration on utilizing repositories, imposter syndrome, and a lack of awareness of Taylor & Francis’s green deposit policies. The author recommends that librarians and their administrators support and encourage one another to make articles available via open access. The author also recommends that Taylor & Francis further publicize this policy to make more authors aware of it