MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1701911414 · doi:10.18438/b8qg6c

The Quality of Academic Library Building Improvements Has a Positive Impact on Library Usage

2006· article· en· W1701911414 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Julie McKenna

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSpace (punctuation)Quality (philosophy)PopulationWeb surveyAcademic libraryWorld Wide WebData collectionLibrary scienceMedicineMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A review of:
 
 Shill, Harold B. and Shawn Tonner. “Does the Building Still Matter? Usage Patterns in New, Expanded, and Renovated Libraries, 1995-2002.” College & Research Libraries 65.2 (Mar. 2004): 123-150. 
 
 Objective – To measure the impact of academic library facility improvements on physical library usage.
 
 Design – The facility improvement data used for this study were previously collected through a 68-item Web survey for the companion article “Creating a Better Place: Physical Improvements in Academic Libraries, 1995-2002” (Shill and Tonner). The measurement of library usage was by exit gate counts before and after library improvements.
 
 Setting – American academic libraries in which: facility improvement projects were completed between 1995 and 2002, the project space was not smaller than 20,000 square feet, the project space did not include off-site storage or non-public space, and gate-count statistics from before and after facility changes were available.
 
 Subjects – Ninety of 384 identified academic libraries were able to provide usable data on: exit gate count, total circulation, in-house collection use, and reference transaction data.
 
 Methods – The data collection was undertaken in 2003 for the companion study (Shill and Tonner). A population of 384 libraries potentially able to meet criteria for the study was gathered and each library was invited by e-mail to complete a Web-based survey. Through this initial contact, 357 libraries were confirmed as meeting the study criteria, and responses were received from 182 of those providing a 51% overall response rate.
 
 Respondents were asked about institutional characteristics (public or private, Carnegie classification, etc.); project specific features (year of completion, nature of project, etc.); nature and extent of changes (seating, wiring, HVAC, etc.); presence of non-library services in the facility; collection arrangements; before and after quality changes in lighting, seating and a range of services (as assessed by the survey respondent); and before and after project completion gate count usage statistics. Respondents were asked a set of eleven questions each with a five-point scale about facility quality and librarian satisfaction with the former and the changed facility.
 
 A further criteria requirement of the availability of pre- and post-project gate count was implemented, reducing the number of libraries to be studied to 90. Facility usage changes were calculated by subtracting the gate count total for the last complete year pre-project from the most recent year gate count post project. 
 
 Main results - Eighty percent of the 90 libraries reported increased gate count post-project, and 20 percent reported a decline in usage. The median increase across the libraries was 37.4 percent with 25.6 percent of libraries experiencing a post-project increase of 100 percent or more. Renovated facilities were more likely to see usage decline, but there was no statistically significant difference in usage change between renovated and new facilities. Libraries more recently upgraded saw greater usage growth than those renovations completed earlier in the study period, although 75 percent of the facilities continued to experience higher post-project usage levels. Nearly all of the private institutions (93.1%) experienced usage increases and almost half experienced growth of 100 percent or more.
 
 No statistically significant relationship was found between changes in post project usage and:
 
 The proportion of facility space allocated for library functions
 The physical location of the library on campus
 The size of the library facility
 The level of degrees offered at the institution
 The availability of wireless access
 The number of computers in the instruction lab
 The number of public access workstations
 A larger number of seats
 The number of group study rooms
 The shelving capacity, the use of compact shelving or off-site storage
 The presence of coffee or snack bars
 The presence of any non-library facilities
 
 There was a statistically significant correlation (Pearson’s r) between increased post project usage and:
 
 The institution type (public or private) (p=.000)
 The number of data ports in the facility (p=.005)
 The percent of wired seats (p=.034)
 
 Ten elements relating to improved quality emerged as statistically significant in relation to increased usage, although the correlation for quality of artificial lighting was not statistically significant (p=.162 n.s.). The statistically significant correlations (Pearson’s r) between quality and increased usage in order of strength of correlation were: the quality of the instruction lab (p=.000); layout (p=.001); public access workstations (p=.006); natural lighting (p=.007); user workspace (p=.008); telecommunications infrastructure (p=.014); overall ambience (p=.020); collection storage (p=.026); heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning system (p=.026); and service point locations (p=.038).
 
 Conclusion – This study confirmed that 80 percent of libraries experience usage increase after a library improvement project. The study revealed those investments that cause increased use, and also found that a number of variables previously predicted to cause usage growth were not significant. The study also found that quality of the improvements, additions, and the building are a significant driver of increased use. The median 37.4 percent increase demonstrates that, contrary to reports in the literature (Shill and Tonner 460), overall library usage is increasing in these institutions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.426
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207