Assessment of Service Desk Quality at an Academic Health Sciences Library

Blevins, Amy; DeBerg, Jennifer; Kiscaden, Elizabeth

doi:10.1080/02763869.2016.1189782

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to address this gap, libraries have since examined a variety of aspects of service in order to demonstrate value and efficiency, from quality of service desk service, to satisfaction with a rapid search service and clinical library financial impact, to a variety of other methods (116)(117)(118)(119)(120)(121)(122)(123).…”

Section: Fig 3 Spectrum Of Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Support in Health Sciences Libraries: A Scoping Review

Visintini¹,

Boutet

Manley³

et al. 2018

J Can Health Libr Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:As part of a health sciences library’s internal assessment of its research support services, an environmental scan and literature review were conducted to identify research services offered elsewhere in Canada. Through this process, it became clear that a more formal review of the academic literature would help libraries make informed decisions about their services. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review of research services provided in health sciences libraries contexts.Methods:Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, ERIC, CINAHL, LISTA, LISS, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Google for articles which described the development, implementation, or evaluation of one or more research support initiatives in a health sciences library context. We identified additional articles by searching reference lists of included studies and soliciting medical library listservs.Results:Our database searches retrieved 7134 records, 4026 after duplicates were removed. Title/abstract screening excluded 3751, with 333 records retained for full-text screening. Seventy-five records were included, reporting on 74 different initiatives. Included studies were published between 1990 and 2017, the majority from North American and academic library contexts. Major service areas reported were the creation of new research support positions, and support services for systematic review support, grants, data management, open access and repositories.Conclusion:This scoping review is the first review to our knowledge to map research support services in the health sciences library context. It identified main areas of research service support provided by health sciences libraries that can be used for benchmarking or information gathering purposes.

show abstract

Section: Fig 3 Spectrum Of Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Support in Health Sciences Libraries: A Scoping Review

Visintini¹,

Boutet

Manley³

et al. 2018

J Can Health Libr Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Face validity was the most common type of validity represented, as nine authors (31%) had pre-tested their instruments; however, we found that in two cases (7%) (Akor & Alhassan, 2015;Blevins, DeBerg, & Kiscaden, 2016) only librarian colleagues participated rather than members of the target population or instrument development specialists. The pre-testing process with potential respondents varied; Blake et al (2016) held campus interview sessions, while Butler and Byrd (2016) informally polled library student employees.…”

Section: Face Validitymentioning

confidence: 83%

“…" Yan, et al (2015) were not clear, as it seemed they gave their scale two midpoint labels, "Neutral" and "Not Familiar." Most 5-point scales had a midpoint labeled "Neutral" (Askew, 2015;Blevins, et al, 2016;Boyce, 2015;Huang et al, 2015;Mohindra & Kumar, 2015) or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" (Jacoby et al, 2016;Masrek & Gaskin, 2016). Three authors did not report the label used for their midpoint (Chen, 2016;Ganaie, 2016;Swoger & Hoffman, 2015).…”

Section: Q1: How Did Lis Researchers Gather Data On Patron Satisfactimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We recommend also that authors cite sources if they base their instrument on previous efforts, demonstrating connections with prior research and further helping to identify useful instruments. Blevins et al (2016) wrote that "three librarians reviewed the existing literature for similar surveys and developed a set of questions to assess customer service quality" (p. 287) but did not cite the similar surveys. By citing contributing studies, librarians uphold the professional value of encouraging their colleagues' professional development as stated in the ALA Code of Ethics (2008).…”

Section: Cite Prior Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Rapid Review of the Reporting and Characteristics of Instruments Measuring Satisfaction with Reference Service in Academic Libraries

Senior¹,

Ward²

2019

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract Objective – The objective of this review was to examine research instrument characteristics, and to examine the validity and reliability of research instruments developed by practicing librarians, which measure the construct of patron satisfaction with academic library reference services. The authors were also interested in the extent to which instruments could be reused Methods – Authors searched three major library and information science databases: Library and Information Science Technology Abstracts (LISTA); Library Science Database (LD); and Library Literature & Information Science Index. Other databases searched were Current Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); Education Resources Information Center (ERIC); Google Scholar; PubMed; and Web of Science. The authors identified studies of patron satisfaction with academic library reference services in which the researcher(s) developed an instrument to study the satisfaction construct. In this rapid-review study, the studies were from 2015 and 2016 only. All retrieved studies were examined for evidence of validity and reliability as primary indicators of instrument quality, and data was extracted for country of study, research design, mode of reference service, data collection method, types of questions, number of items related to satisfaction, and content of items representing the satisfaction construct. Instrument reusability was also determined. Results – At the end of the screening stage of the review, a total of 29 instruments were examined. Nearly all studies were quantitative or mixed quantitative/qualitative in design. Twenty-six (90%) of the studies employed surveys alone to gather data. Twelve publications (41%) included a discussion of any type of validity; five (17%) included discussion of any type of reliability. Three articles (10%) demonstrated more than one type of validity evidence. Nine articles (31%) included the instrument in full in an appendix, and eight instruments (28%) were not appended but were described adequately so as to be reusable. Conclusions – This review identified a range of quality in librarians’ research instruments for evaluating satisfaction with reference services. We encourage librarians to perform similar reviews to locate the highest-quality instrument on which to model their own, thereby increasing the rigor of Library and Information Science (LIS) research in general. This study shows that even a two-year rapid review is sufficient to locate a large quantity of research instruments to assist librarians in developing instruments.

show abstract