REPORT OF THE STATISTICS COMMITTEE OF DEPOSITORY LIBRARY ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE PUBLIC PRINTER
I. Charges to the Committee Make a final report by April 1998 with recommendations on the content and methodology of future biennial surveys and other data collection instruments in the Depository Library Program
II. Activities For the longer term we looked at the data needs of the Program as demonstrated in the annual appropriation hearing testimony, information needed in the "Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program," data required during the process of revising Title 44, and data needed by GPO for managing the Program. We also looked at data gathered by libraries in the Program for their own management purposes and for reporting to other organizations.
III. History and Process: GPO uses the data: - To keep track of Congressional districts representation, new slots, etc. - For 1995 Study of depositories, transition - For the inspection process Each Biennial Survey has reflected the particular needs of its time. As a result there is a lack of coherence and the data are not very useful to study the development of depository libraries over time. At the same time there have been categories of information needed by the GPO and by program libraries in promoting and administering the program that were not available through the Survey. In order to give the Biennial Survey more weight as a research and management tool, we subscribe to the following: General Principles for Data Collection in the FDLP [1] The data that are gathered should meet the needs of GPO and the program libraries:
for Program advocacy; for reporting to Congress; for depository library management; for depository library advocacy; and to satisfy the requirements of the law. [2] The data should complement and be standardized with other major data surveys, insofar as possible, e.g., IPEDS, ARL, Public Library. [3] Each data element should be sufficiently defined so that FDLs can complete the survey instrument with accuracy and consistency. [4] Data elements and definitions should be consistent over time. There must be compelling reasons to add or change data or definitions. [5] Program libraries should have sufficient advance notice of new data or definitions to allow them to prepare, e.g., if annual data are required, the libraries should know at least a year in advance. [6] The content, wording and methodology of the biennial survey should be reviewed and tested in advance by experts in statistical and survey methodology. [7] The content, wording and methodology of the biennial survey should remain relatively constant or should change only with advance warning. If other data are needed on an occasional or emergency basis, GPO should use other means or special surveys. With the assistance of Depository Library Council GPO should review the survey instrument biennially in the off years, looking at old responses and suggesting substantive and reasoned revisions. In general a question should be of sufficient lasting import to stay on the survey for at least three surveys.
IV. Recommendations and Rationale
- that GPO seek expert methodological advice in developing the instrument; - the Council and GPO review the Biennial Survey in off years; - the Council and GPO keep unique questions off the Biennial Survey and use other mechanisms for gathering occasional information - GPO make the compiled data available to program libraries in a timely fashion.
Rationale
V. Content of the Biennial Survey [1] consult the interested parties about the information they need on a regular basis for good management, including:
the Superintendent of Documents the Library Programs Service the Inspection Team Depository Library Council Program libraries. [3] look at the professional literature on the topic; [4] create and test the questions, definitions, and methodology before Fall 1999. Considerable work has been done on these issues in the past. The published professional literature should be mined for useful information. Among those we have consulted are: American Library Association. GODORT Statistics Interest Group. "Statistics Guidelines for Government Documents Librarians," Documents to the People 9(November 1981): 279-284. Morton, Bruce. "Random Thoughts on Numbers: the Need for Minimum Uniform Statistical Reporting Standards for U.S. Depository Libraries," Government Publications Review 11 (May-June 1984): 195-202. Seavey, Charles. "Measurement and Evaluation of U.S. Federal Depository Collections," Government Publications Review 18 (March-April 1991): 147-155.
Having said that we will not specify content, we do have some suggestions
that might be considered. We do not want to suggest that these are the
only questions, merely the ones that, as representatives of Program
libraries, we have thought of so far. -space, facilities, equipment (including electronic) -operational overhead for documents, including network, Internet costs; may be expressed as a percentage of library's total operational costs -collateral purchased materials, e.g., indexes, cataloging services use by activity (e.g., reference, instruction, special programs) hours collection available; hours reference services available circulation, where applicable number of work stations available to the public number of hits on Program libraries' web pages microform tangible electronic * conservation, preservation, binding, reformatting * program library needs for: product support
24 March 1998 Denise Davis Cindy Etkin, GPO Staff Liaison Linda Frederick Jan Fryer Paula Kaczmarek Sheila McGarr, GPO Staff Liaison Julie Wallace Lynn Walshak
|