Standing By to Help: Transforming Online Reference with a Proactive Chat System

Kemp, Jan H.; Ellis, Carolyn L. V.; Maloney, Krisellen

doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.08.018

Cited by 23 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Larson et al (2014) highlighted consistent application of the scale as an issue when a chat service employed both local and consortial chat agents. However, the rest of the articles did not have any crossinstitution norming, though five (in addition to Gerlich and Berard), performed some form of inter-rater norming for their own data (Belanger et al, 2016;Kemp et al, 2015;Keyes & Dworak, 2017;Stieve & Wallace, 2018). In the remainder, no mention was made of any norming of READ Scale ratings, other than Warner et al (2020) who explicitly stated that interrater reliability was not tested as part of the study.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bungaro et al (2017) only reported the split between the highest 3 categories (i.e., 4, 5, and 6), for which a subject specialist was justified and the lowest 3, for which a 'generic' librarian was sufficient. Kemp et al (2015), comparing complexity of questions across modes, considered questions "complex" at ratings 3 and above and "basic" at 2 and below. They made a further distinction that a score of 4 or above required librarian or subject librarian expertise.…”

Section: Local Interpretationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers found evidence to support a variety of staffing recommendations, both in terms of number of staff assigned to providing the service and the level of experience of staff providing the chat service. Kemp et al (2015) and Maloney and Kemp (2015), studying the implementation of a proactive chat system at the University of Texas-San Antonio library, found an increase in complex questions through the proactive system. Because they defined READ Scale 4 and above as needing librarian-level attention, an increase in librarians was needed to field the more frequent, complex questions, and they subsequently used a multi-pronged approach to get more librarians into the chat staffing mix (Kemp et al, 2015).…”

Section: Staffing Needsmentioning

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

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: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Local Interpretationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Staffing Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

“…Due to staffing constraints, Hesburgh Library eventually had to discontinue this service, but their case study provides a good example of how considerations unrelated to the value of a service affects reference practices other than the desk (Kayongo & van Jacob, 2011, p. 108). In another case study, librarians at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) considered the potential value of "proactive" chat services (Kemp, Ellis, & Maloney, 2015;. These text-entry boxes can be embedded on library websites so that they appear and prompt the user to chat with a librarian at opportune times (e.g., after a user has spent more than a minute on a given webpage).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reference services in liberal arts libraries

Oxford

2016

newlibs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study addresses a gap in the literature regarding reference services at liberal arts institutions. The author conducted a literature review to examine the existing body of research on reference services and distributed a survey to the 80 member libraries of the Oberlin Group in February 2015. The study found that a wide range of reference practices are in place at liberal arts libraries and focused especially on the use of a designated reference desk, which is widespread. However, there is a correlation between higher librarian satisfaction with reference services and the absence of a desk. Comments from respondents are included in the discussion and reflect common themes around reference services. Some limitations of the study include its small sample size and conflicting responses from librarians at the same institution. Nevertheless, this article provides a starting point for further research into liberal arts reference. The factors relating to librarian satisfaction, the themes running through the comments, and the trends discussed in the literature review may be relevant for determining the most effective reference model at any institution.

show abstract

“…Chat had been a particularly low point of contact for our reference transactions (5% in fall 2016), and during our research we reviewed a few studies that found that adding a proactive element to a chat widget significantly increased chat transactions. 1 We already had a chat widget that rested at the bottom of the screen on all our library website pages. When a user clicked on the widget's "Ask Us" tab, it would slide up the chat box.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%