Guidelines for evaluation of Core Records

Model C: Information to be reported when communicating the efficacy of core level cataloging from the patron perspective.

Model C-A (draft by Elaine Yontz, April 16, 1999)

1. Type of library

Public
College
University
Special

2. Identify levels of cataloging compared

Core level compared to full level original cataloging
Core level compared to minimal level original cataloging
Core level compared to full level and to minimal level original cataloging

3. Describe level of authority work completed for each level of cataloging compared

No authority work
Local authority work only
Full NACO authority work

Number of headings over duration of experiment

Full SACO authority work

Number of headings over duration of experiment

4. Describe the sample for each level of cataloging compared. (Samples should be comparable in size, subject, language, and span of dates of entry in local catalog)

Sample size (number of titles)
Format(s)
Subject area(s)
Language(s)
Library classification scheme(s)
Span of imprint dates
Span of dates of entry into local catalog

5. Describe the unit of measure to be used in the comparison (Apply measure equally to both core and comparison level(s))

Number of charges per title
Number of browses per title
Number of holds per title

6. Describe methodology of the comparison

Duration of experiment
How is data collected/reported?
Other special conditions/activities/controls

MODEL C-B (Draft by Elaine Yontz, April 28, 1999)

1. Type of library

Public
College
University
Special

2. Describe the sample for each level of cataloging compared

Sample size (number of titles)
Format(s)
Subject area(s)
Language(s)
Library's classification scheme(s)
Span of imprint dates

3. Describe the methodology of the comparison

Parts of record evaluated
Author entries
Title entries
Uniform title entries
Variant title entries
Series information
Notes
Subject headings
Comparison of users' perception of acceptability of records of different levels