Interpreting Library Chat Reference Service Transactions

Mavodza, Judith

doi:10.1080/02763877.2019.1572571

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Belanger et al (2016), Gerlich andBerard, (2010), Kohler (2017), Stieve and Wallace (2018), and Ward and Jacoby (2018) found that zero chats were rated a 5 or 6. Kayongo andVan Jacob (2011), Cabaniss (2015), and Mavodza (2019) found that the majority of chat interactions fell within the 1-3 range. The one outlier was Bungaro et al (2017), who found that almost half (46%) of their chat interactions happened at the 4 or above designation, though it is unclear how many were rated at each level.…”

Section: The Ratingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kohler (2017) reported Rockhurst University used the READ Scale to understand "the effort, skills, knowledge, teaching, techniques, and tools" used by librarians (p. 138). Keyes and Dworak (2017), Mavodza (2019), Stieve and Wallace (2018), Valentine and Moss (2017), and Warner et al (2019) did not address whether they were assessing the complexity of either questions or answers.…”

Section: Rating Questions or Answersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While Mavodza (2019) reported counts for each point on the scale, she presented the groupings of the counts at 2 and lower, writing "[w]hen analyzing the same chats from the READ Level, most of them were at the one and two difficulty levels at 939 and 230, respectively" (p. 128).…”

Section: Local Interpretationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bungaro et al (2017) were interested in the frequency of psychology-related chats and whether they were, on average, more complex than others. Cabaniss (2015) and Mavodza (2019), following the same research protocol, assigned four categories to chats: general information, technical, known item lookup, and reference. Kohler's (2017) algorithm weighed certain words more than others in order to algorithmically assign a READ Scale rating.…”

Section: Data Points Used In Conjunction With Read Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Does the READ Scale Work for Chat? A Review of the Literature

Warner¹,

Hurley²

2021

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective – This review aims to determine the suitability of the READ Scale for chat service assessment. We investigated how librarians rate chats and their interpretations of the results, and compared these findings to the original purpose of the Scale. Methods – We performed a systematic search of databases in order to retrieve sources, applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, and read the remaining articles. We synthesized common themes that emerged into a discussion of the use of the READ Scale to assess chat service. Additionally, we compiled READ Scale designations across institutions to allow side-by-side comparisons of ratings of chat interactions. Results – This review revealed that librarians used a variety of approaches in applying and understanding READ Scale ratings. Determination of staffing levels was often the primary goal. Further, librarians consistently rated chat interactions in the lower two-thirds of the scale, which has implications for service perception and recommendations. Conclusion – The findings of this review indicated that librarians frequently use READ Scale data to make staffing recommendations, both in terms of numbers of staff providing chat service and level of experience to adequately meet service demand. Evidence suggested, however, that characteristics of the scale itself may lead to a distorted understanding of chat service, skewing designations to the lower end of the scale, and undervaluing the service.

show abstract

Section: The Ratingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rating Questions or Answersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Local Interpretationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Data Points Used In Conjunction With Read Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Does the READ Scale Work for Chat? A Review of the Literature

Warner¹,

Hurley²

2021

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Articles reporting the results of research on digital reference including chat have been published since the 1990s (Matteson et al , 2011). Topics covered in the last few years of literature have ranged from teaching or instruction in chat (Dempsey, 2016, 2017; Hervieux and Tummon, 2018; Jacoby et al , 2016; Schiller, 2016), the types of questions asked in a chat service (Bourgeois and Bealer, 2020; Brown, 2017; Chen and Wang, 2019; Mavodza, 2019; McKewan and Richmond, 2017; Ozeran and Martin, 2019; Stieve and Wallace, 2018), staffing hours or needs, patron satisfaction with the service (Brown, 2017; Mungin, 2017), the role of cobrowsing (Wan et al , 2009) and communication issues (Westbrook, 2007). Probably the largest and most prolific area has involved service quality.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing citations: reviewing chat transcripts to improve citation assistance as a service

Wilkinson

Denneler

Nay

et al. 2021

RSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeUsing chat transcripts from Indiana University Libraries, the authors examined a subset of transcripts involving citations. From this analysis, they propose improvements for citation assistance as a holistic service.Design/methodology/approachTwo years of chat transcripts were examined and questions containing citation-related keywords were segregated for further examination. The authors used a test data set to create a coding scheme for the questions and responses. This scheme was then applied to all the citation-related transcripts.Findings390 of 11,553 transcripts included interactions about citations. In 42% of the transcripts, no specific citation style was mentioned. American Psychological Association and Modern Language Association were the most frequently mentioned citation styles by chat users. Business reports (company data and market research), periodicals (journal, newspaper or magazine articles), websites and government documents were the most often asked about formats, but there was a wide variety of other unusual formats. Questions about EndNote were more common than other types of citation management software. Chat staff utilized a variety of responses including guiding the student by example, directing to an online resource for more information (85% of the responses) or referring to a citation management expert. An unexpected amount of hedging words in the responses indicates the presence of anxiety on the part of chat staff in responding to these types of questions.Originality/valueThis paper goes beyond most existing studies of chat transcripts by using chat transcripts as data to guide service improvements for a commonly asked but not typically discussed set of questions.

show abstract