ERIC ED252241: Evaluation of the Document Delivery Service Provided by University Libraries, Twin Cities Campus, University of Minnesota. Final Report of a Research Project

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 252 241 AUTHOR TITLE INSTITUTION SPONS AGENCY IR 050 983 D'Elia, George; And Others Evaluation of the Document Delivery Service...

0 Downloads 0 Views
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 252 241

AUTHOR TITLE

INSTITUTION SPONS AGENCY

IR 050 983

D'Elia, George; And Others Evaluation of the Document Delivery Service Provided by University Libra.7ies, Twin Cities Camput, University of Minnesota. Final Report of a Research Project. Minnesota Univ., Minneapolis. Courcil on Library Resources, Inc., Washington, D.C.

PUB DATE NOTE PUB TYPE

1 May 84

EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS

MF01/P003 Plus Postage. *Academic Libraries; *College Faculty; Correlation; Delivery Systems; Higher Education; *Information Dissemination; *Library Materials; Library Research; *Library Services; Library Surveys; Use Studies *Document Delivery Service; *University of Minnesota

IDENTIFIERS

62p.

Reports Research/Technical (143) -Tests /Evaluation Instruments (160)

ABSTRACT The University Library System at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus, is a decentralized system of 35 libraries spread over 3 campuses in 2 cities. This study evaluated the performance of two libraries in the system--Walter Library and the Institute of Technology Libraries--that provide document delivery services to assist faculty members in obtaining documents from any library within the system. The evaluation process entailed both analysis of past performance data and a survey of the faculties served by g two delivery services. Past performance data were cumulated a.,1 analyzed to determine the volume and the nature of the materials requested and each library's performancp in filling these requests. These analyses are presented in the firbt part of this report. The self-administered questionnaires, which were completed by. 52% of the faculty*in all of the departments served by both delivery services, was designed to fulfill two objectives: to gather from the nonusers of the services data describing their reasons for nonuse and the nature and extent of their use of the university library system; and to gather from the users data describing their reasons for use, the nature and extent of their use of the library system, and their evaluations of the document delivery service. A detailed discussion of the design of the survey and the results of the data analyses are presented in the second part of the report. Appendices A and B contain copies of correspondence and questionnaires mailed to nonusers and users of the document delivery service. (THC)

*********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * from the original document. *******************************************************************w***

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

'NTERIEWM This do:mimed has be,.o reproduced as received

nom the plifSIii or orgndation

()ow:idling Moen chanties

hemmadetomonove

nupoidoctimothility Points 01 view on °pewits-stated in this dour merit do not necessdnly represent official NIE posdion nt policy

.4r

EVALUATION Of THE DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICE

CSJ

CNJ tin

PROVIDED B'

'UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES, TWIN CITIES CAMPUS,

CSJ

w

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

FINAL REPORT OF A RESEARCH PROJECT FUNDED BY THE COUNCIL OF LIBRARY RESOURCES,

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR

RESEARCH LIBRARIiNSHIP PROGRAM

BY:

GEORGE D'ELIA ANDREA HINDING CERISE OBERMAN

and the assistance of CHARLA HUTKINS

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA MAY 1, 1984

T

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

George D'Elia

2

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

1

PURPOSE OF STUDY

3

PART I:, EVALUATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE DATA

5

PERFORMANCE DATA: INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY LIBRARIES DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICE

6

PERFORMANCE DATA: PART II:

WALTER LIBRARY DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICE

8

FACULTY SURVEY

11

OBJECTIVES OF SURVEY

12

DESIGN

13

INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT

13

Measurement of Reasons For Not Using Document Delivdry

14

Measurement of Extent of Use of the University Library System

.

15

Measurement of Academic Status

15

Measurement of Collegiate Affiliation

15

Measurement of the Extent of Use of Document Deliv'ery

16

Measurement of Reasons For Usitig Document Delivery

16

Measurement of Evaluation of Document Delivery

17

DATA COLLECTION

17

DATA ANALYSES

18

Correlates of Nonuse/Use of Document Delivery

20

Nonusers' Reasons For Nonuse of Document Delivery

22

Correlates'of Perceived Degree of Use of Document Delivery.

.

.

Correlates of the Estimated Proportions of Document Requests for Teaching and Research Efforts

27 34

DISCUSSION

Correlates of Nonuse/Use of Document Delivery Correlates of Perceived Degree of Use of Document Delivery.

22

35 .

.

36

APPENDIX A

38

APPENDIX B

50

INTRODUCTION

The University Library system at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus, is a decertralized system of 35 libraries spread over three campuses in two cities.

As a result, the location and retrieval of

library materials can be a confusing and time-consuming process for a patron.

To help alleviate some of these problems, two libraries in the

system, Walter Library and the Institute of Technology Libraries, provide

1

Document Delivery services to assist faculty members in obtaining documents from any library within the system.

Walter Library houses the

collections and provides the services to support the faculties of the College of Education, the General College, and the de artments of Art History, Music, and Psychology within the College of L beral Arts.

The

Institute of Technology Libraries house the collections and provide the

services to support the faculties of the Institute, which is comprised of 18 science and engineering departments.

Requesting a document, that is, a book, a periodical article, or microform, from any library within the University Library system is a simple process.

Both Services have telephone answering machines which

faculty members can call at any time to leave a request for'a specific document.

Every effort is made by the services to locate, photocopy if

necessary, and deliver requested documents within 24 to 48 hours.

There

is ao limit to the number of documents that can be requested and no charge for the loan of a document.

The document is charged out to the

requestor and is subject to the regular, circulation policies and procedures of the lending library.

The cost of photocopying a document is

billed to the requestor's department.

Walter Library's Document Delivery service began operation in March of 1974.

The service was originally designed as an "experimental project"

by the Education-Psychology-Library Science (EPLS) Library.

The primary

purpose of this "project" was to generate data which could be used to determine the adequacy of the EPLS Library collection for the College of Education fa ulty members.

Therefore, while requests for documents by

any Universi y personnel were accepted, College of Education faculty mem-

bers were considered the primary target group. scheduled to terminate in June of 1974.

The service had been

However, because of the over-

whelming enthusiasm which was expressed for the service, additional funds were *.provided by the Library to continue Document Delivery thruugh June of 1975.

After June, 1975, Document Delivery was subsidized by the

various departments using the service. 1980.

These subsidies ended in the Fall,

Since then, Document Delivery has charged $.15 per page for copied

material to help cover the costs of providing the service.. Walter Lylcp.P.r's Document Delivery service has been in continuous

operation since March, 1974, except for a nine month interruption of service in 1981 - 82.

Document Delivery is staffed by part-time student

employees and actively seeks to serve all of the faculty in the academic units served by Walter Library.

In actual practice, requests received

from any member of the faculty or other University personnel are honored.

The Institute of Technology Libraries began a Document Delivery service in May of 1980.

The faculty of the Institute of Technology were

considered the primary target group, but once again, requests from any

3

member of

faculty or other University personnel were accepted.

Initially, the cost of the service was absorbed by the Institute of technology Libraries.

Presently, a charge of $.15 per page for copied ma-

terial is also being levied by the Institute of Technology Document Delivery service to help sLstain the service.

The Institute'of Technology Libraries' Document Delivery service was patterned after Walter Library's Document Delivery service and wi%h few exceptions is similar in design and function.

The faculty can call the

telephone answering machine to place a request, or, if they wish, they can fill out a Document Delivery request form in any Institute of Technology library.

However, unlike Walter Library's Document Delivery ser-

vice which forwards all documents to requestors by campus mail, the Institute of Technology Libraries' Document Delivery'service uses its own personnel to hand deliver all documents as quickly as possible to the requestor's department.

A pickup service for returning documents is also

availAble to the faculty.

The Institute of Technology Libraries' Document Delivery service has been in continuous operation since its inception in May, 1980.

No major

changes in this service have been made.

PURPOSE OF STUDY.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performances of these two document delivery services.

The evaluation process entailed both an

si

4

analysis of past performance data and a survey of the faculties served by the two delivery services.

Past performance data were cumulated and analyzed to determine the volume and the nature of the materials requested, and each library's performance in filling these requests.

These analyses are presented

i Part I of this report. The survey of the faculty in all of the departments served by both delivery services was designed to fulfill two general objectives:

1) to

gather from the nonusers ci the services data describing a) their reasons for nonuse and b) the nature and extent of their use of the University Library system; and 2) to gather from the users of the services data

describing a) their reasons for use, b) the nature and extent of their use of the University Library system, and c) their evaluations of the service.

It was anticipated that these data could be tested to determine

whether the use of a document delivery service was related to the use of other library services on campus.

The underlying question of interest

was, "Does a document delivery service serve better the needs of library users or does it bring library service to faculty members who would otherwise not be active library users?"

A detailed discussion of the design

of the survey and the results of the data analyses is presented in Part II of this report.

PART I:

EVALUATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE DATA

/

6

Since their inceptions, both delivery services have collected data,describing their levels of activity and overall performance.

The types of

data collected by the two services differ slightly and are presented separately.

PERFORMANCE DATA: INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY LIBRARIES DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICE

The number of requests received, the numbers of different types of docu-

ments requested, and the number of requests filled have been tabulated daily by Document Delivery.

Unfortunately, the numbers of different types

of documents provided have not been collected.

These data were then

cumulated into annual reports for each fiscal year of operation (July June).

A sutmary of these data is presented in Table 1.

The data for the

current year of operation (1983 - 1984) are available only through February of 1984.

These data indicate that:

1) the greatest number of re-

quests was received during the first year of operation; 2) the number of requests received has declined annually with the possibility of a slight, projected rebound during the current fiscal year; 3) the relative pro-

portions of journal articles to books requested have run roughly 80% to 20%;'and 4) the overall performance of the service, as measured by the

percent of requests filled, has remained relatively stable at approximately 78%.

Unfortunately, since the numbers of different types of docu-

ments provided are not available, it is impossible to determine the percent of requests filled for journal articles or'nbks.

TABLE 1

DOCUMENT DELIVER1 SERVICE PERFORMANCE: INFTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY LIBRARIES

PERIOD

NUMBER OF REQUESTS RECEIVED (TYPE BY %)

.

NUMBER OF REQUESTS FILLED

PERCENT OF REQUESTS FILLED

July 1980 - June 1981

1721 (Books = 18%) (Journals = 80%) (Other = 2%)

1325

77%

July 1981 - June 1982

1296 (Books = 20%) (Journals = 78%) (Other = 2%)

1019

79%

July 1982 - June 1983

1129 (Books = 14%) (Journals = 86%)

894

79%

July 1983 - Feb. 1984 (Projection for full year)

809 (1200)

613

76%

(Books = 16%) (Journals = 84%)

10

8

PERFORMANCE DATA:

WALTER LIBRARY DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICE

The number of requests received, the number of requests filled, and the

numbers of different types of documents provided have been Tabulated daily by Document Delivery.

Unfortunately, the numbers of different

types of documents requested have not been collected.

These data were

then cumulated into annual reports for each academic year of 0-,eration (Fall Quarter - Summer Session II).

Summaries of these available data are presented in Tables 2 and 3. The data for the current year of operation (1983 - 1984) are available only through the Winter Quarter 1984. indicate that:

The data presented in Table 2

1) the annual numbers of requests received varied con-

siderably during the first seven years of operation; 2) after the nine

month interruption of service in 1981-82, the number of requests received failed to rebound to previous levels in spite of frequent direct mailings

to faculty members promoting the service; and 3) the overall performance of the service, as measured by the percent of requests filled, declined steadily for the first seven years of service from an initial high of 93% in 1974 - 1975 to a low of 79% in 1980 - 1981 and then rebounded slightly when the service was resumed in 1982.

The data presented in Table 3 indicate that the relative proportions of journal articles to books provided by Document Delivery have run roughly 75% to 25%.

Unfortunately, since the numbers of different types

of documents requested are not ivailable, it is impossible to determine the percent of requests filled for journal articles or books.

1.1

TABLE 2

DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICE PERFORMANCE: WALTER LIBRARY .11

NUMBER ,OF4

REQUESTS RECEIVED

NUMBER OF REQUESTS FILLED

Spring quarter '74 - Spring quarter '75

2773,

/2580

Fall. quarter '75 - Summer sessions '76

2317

1991-

86%

Fall quarter '76 - Summer sessions '77 *

2476

2125

86%

3743

3126

84%

2463

82%

PIOD

j'all quarter '77 - Summer sessions '78

PERCENT OF REQUESTS FILLED

93%

,

Fall, quarter '78 -,Summer sessions '79

3006

Fallquarter '79 - Summer sessions '80

3278

2639

81%

Fall quarter '80 - Summer sessions '81

2497

1975

79%

Service interrupted '81 - '82

-1.--

,

__-

Fall quarter, '82 - Summer sessions q.

495

404

82%

Fall quarter '83 - Winter quarter '84

595

496

83%

Note. - No data are available for Summer Session j '77.

TABLE 3

NUMBER OF REQUESTS FILLED BY TYPE OF MATERIAL: WALTER LIBRARY DOCUMENT DELIVERY

'77 - '78

NUMBER OF REQUESTS FILLED '3126

BOOKS

JOUFNALS

OTHER

'78 - '79

2463

'79 -

'80

.2639

'80 - '81

'82 - '83

'83 - '84*

1975

404

496

733(23%)

513(21%)

622(24%)

438(220)

72(18%)

139(28%)

2329(75%)

1867(76%)

1984(75%)

1493(76%)

327(81%)

345(70%)

64(2%)

83(3%)

33(1%)

44(2%)

*Note. - Data available for Fall arid Winter Quarters only.

5(1%)

12(2%)

PART II: FACULTY SURVEY

OBJECTIVES OF FACULTY SURVEY.

The objectives of the survey of the current service population were as follows:

1) to determine if the nonuse/use of Document Delivery is related to the subjects'

a) academic status; or

b) collegiate affiliation; or c) other uses of library services on campus. 2) to identify, from among the nonusers, of Document Delivery, the reasons for nonuse.

3) to determine, from among the users of Dobument Delivery, if their perceived degree of use is related to their a) academic status; or

b) collegiate affiliation; or c) other uses of lilDrary services on campus; or

d) reasons for using the service; or

e) reasons for not using the service for all of their document requirements; or f) evaluations of the service.

4) to determine, from among the users of Document Delivery, if their estimates of the proportions of requests submitted to Document Delivery

that were intended to support their teaching efforts and their research efforts, are related to their

15

13

a) academic status; or

b) collegiate affiliation; or c) other uses

of library services on campus; or

d) reasons for using the service; or

e) reasons for not using the service for all of their document requirements; or f) evaluations of the service.

DESIGN

The survey was designed as a census of all of the faculty in the various academic departments served by the Institute of Technology Libraries and Walter Library.

To the extent that 52% of this population responded, the

data represent the responses of a self-selected sample.

To the extent

that this population and self selected sample are representative of faculty at large, research universities with decentralized library resources, the data may be generalizable.

INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT

The data were designed to be collected by means of self-administered questionnaires, one for the users of Document Delivery and one for the

14

nonusers of Document Delivery.

Both questionnaires included questions

designed to measure the subject's a) reasons for not using Document.,

Delivery (at all or all of the time); b) extent of use of the University Library System; c) academic status; and d) collegiate affiliation.

In

addition, the user questionnaire also included questions designed to measure the subject's a) reasons for using Document Delivery; b) satisfaction with the service; c) estimates of the proportions of requests that were intended to'support his/her teaching efforts and his/her research efforts; d) opinion of .the importance of having the Document

Delivery service available; and e) opinion of the budget priority that the University Library system should give to the service.

Copies of

both questionnaires are provided in the Appendices.

Measurement of Reasons For Not Using Document Delivery

The subject was presented with nine possible reasons for not using Document Delivery (or not using Document Delivery for all of his/her document needs); for example, "I prefer to browse my subject area before selecting a document."

Each reason was followed by a five-point scale

with t'esponse categories ranging from "Not at all applicable" to "Very strongly applicable."

The subject was asked to select the response

category which best described the degree to which each reason for nonuse applied to him/her.

The questions measuring the reasons for nonuse are

numbered 3.A through 3.1 in the user questionnaire (p. 41) and 2.A through 2.1 in the nonuser questionnaire (p. 53).

15

Measurement of Extent of Use of the University Library System

The subject was asked to :stimate the extent of his/her use of campus libraries in terms of how often he/she a) personally visits a library;

b) sends someone else to a library to get needed material; c) calls a library for information or assistance; and d) frequents a departmental reading rooms

Each of these types of use was followed by a six-point

scale with response categories ranging from "Never" to "More than once a week."

The subject was asked to, select the response category which

best described his/her estimate of degree of use.

The questions measur-

ing extent of library use are numbered 9.A through 11 in the user questionnailie (p. 43) and 3.A through 5 in the nonuser questionnaire (p. 54).

:easurement of Academic Status

The subject was asked to indicate his/her current academic status at the university.

The response categories included the regular professorial

ranks, research associate cr fellow, professional/administrative class, and other.

This question is number 12 in the user questionnaire (p. 44)

and number'6 in the nonuser questionnaire (p. 55).

Measurement of Collegiate Affiliation

The subject was asked to indicate the college with which he/she is affiliated.

These. included the College of Liberal Arts, College of

Education, General College, Institute of Technology and other6.

18

This

16

question is number 13 in the user questionnaire (11. 44) and number 7 in the nonuser questionnaire (p. 55).

Measurement of the Extent of Use of Document Delivery (User Questionnaire Only)

The subject was asked to estimate, from among all of the documents that he/she sought in the University Library system, the proportion that was requested through Document Delivery.

This question was followed by a

five-point scale with response, categories ranging from "Fewer than 20%" through "80% or more. ".

The subject was asked to select the response

category which best described his/her estimate of extent of use of Document Delivery.

This is question 2' in the liser questiormaire (p. 41).

The subject was also asked to estimate, from among all of the documents that he/she requested through Document Delivery, the proportions that were requested to support his/her teaching efforts and research efforts.

These two questions were followed by five-point scales similar

to the one described above.

These are questions 6.A and 6.B in the user

questionnaire (p. 43).

Measurement of Reasons For Using Document Delivery (User Questionnaire Only)

The subject was presented with five possible reasons for using Document Delivery; for example, "Using Document Delivery saves me time."

Each

reason was followed by a five-point scale with response categories ranging from "Not at all applicable" to "Very strongly applicabl ."

The

17

subject was asked to select the response category which, best described

the degree to which each reason for use applied to him/her.

The questions

measuring the reasons for use are numbered 4.A through 4.E in the user questionnaire (p. 42).

Measurement of Evaluation of Document Delivery (User Questionnaire Only)

The subject was asked to evaluate Document Delivery in three ways. the subject was asked how satisfied he/she is with the service.

First,

This

question was followed by a six-point scale with response categorles raging from "Strongly dissatisfied" to "Strongly satisfied."

Second, the

subject was asked how important to him/her is the availability of the service.

This question was followed by a four-point scale with response

categories ranging from "Unimportant" to "Strongly important."

Third,

the subject was asked what priority he/she thinks the library should give to the service in a time of tight budgets.

This question was followed by

a five-point scale with response categories ranging from "Very low priority" to "Very high priority."

For each question the subject was

asked to select the response category which best described his/her opinion.

These questions are numbered 5, 7; and 8 respectively in the

user questionnaire (p. 42).

DATA COLLECTION

Based upon records kept by Document Delivery, all members of the faculty who had requested a document since the beginning of the academic year

20

18

(September 1983) Wtre classified as users of the service.

All members of

the faculty in theApArtments served by Document Delivery who had not requested a document since the 1-eginning of the academic year were classified as nonusers of the service.

On March 23, 1984 usei, questionnaires were mailed to the 155

fied users of Document Delivery and nonuser questionnaires were mailed to Each questionnaire was

the 1006 identified nonusers of the service.

accompanied by an appropriate cover letter and a return envelope Addressed to the project director.

On April 5, a day after the requested due date,

a follow-up letter was mailed to all subjects.

Since the respOnses were

anonymous, the letter served the dual purposes of thanking the subject for responding, in the event that the subject had already responded, and encouraging the subject Carreturn a completed questionnaire, in the .ivent-

that the subject had not as yet responded.

A total of 1161 question-

naires were mailed of which 34 were returned with messages indicating that for a variety of reasons (e.g. separation, sabbatical, etc.) the subject was not available.

Of the remaining 1127 questionnaires, 582 were

returned for a response rate of 52%. presented in Table 4.

A summary of the response data is

Copies of the cover letters and the follow-up

letter are presented in the Appendices.

DATA ANALYSES

Descriptive statistics for the responses to the questions in t questionnaire are presented in Table A.1 in Appendix A.

21

user

Des riptive sta-

19

a

TABLE 4

NUMBERS OF RESPONDENTS TO THE SURVEY

NUMBER OF QUESTIONNAIRES SENT

IT USERS

NUMBER OF QUESTIONNAIRES DISQUALIFIED

NUMBER OF RESPONSES

71

0

43

IT NONUSERS

457

18

205

IT TOTAL

528

18

248

84

1

56

WALTER NONUSERS

549

10

220

WALTER TOTAL

633

11

276

WALTER USERS

11

OTHER USERS

ANONYMOUS USERS OTHER NONUSERS

5

36

-

ANONYMOUS NONUSERS

6

ANONYMOUS DISQUALIFIED

5

10111MI.

GRAND TOTALS

1161

.

34

582

20

tistics for the responses to the questions in the nonuser questionnaire are presented in Table B.1 in Appendix B.

Correlates of Nonuse/Use of Document Delivery

In order to identify the correlates of nonuse/use of Document Delivery, nonuse/use was dummy coded (0,1) and then regressed onto each of the following bets of variables:

a) academic status, also dummy coded into the following' groups:

regular tenure-track faculty appointments,

research faculty appaOtments,Trofessional/administrative appointments, and other appointments. b). collegiate affiliation, glso dummy coded into the following groups:

College of Liberal Arts, College of Education,

General College, Inst Lute of Technology, and other.

c) other uses of library ser *ces on campus (Questions 9 A - 11, User

Questionnaire; Questiogs 3 A -

5, Nonuser Questionnaire).

The results of these analyses, reported in Table 5, indicate that

a) nonuse/use of Document Delivery was not related to academid status.

b) nonuse/use of Document Delivery was positively correlated 4,

with affiliation with the College of Education and negati've-

ly correlated with affiliation with General College.

How,

ever, these correlations, although statistically significant, are extremely weak and trivial.

A trivial relationship 'is

defined as a meaningless relationship that it statistically

23

.

21

TABLE 5

CORRELATES OF NONUSE /USE OF DOCUMENT DELIVERY

VARIABLES

2

N

r

Faculty

582

.02

.00

n.s.

Research

582

.04

.00

n.s.

Professional/Administrative

582

-.03

.00

n.s.

College of Liberal Arts

582

-.01

.00

n.s.

College of Education

582

.11

.01

.01

General College

582

-.12

.01

.01

.582

-.05

.00

n.s.

576

.03

.00

n.s.

576

.14

.02

.001

... calling a library

574

.27

.07

.001

... access to department reading room

576

-;03

.00

n.s.

''--314

.00

.00

n.s.

r

a

Academic Status

Collegiate Affiliation

.

Institute of Technology'

Other Uses of Library Services O.. personal visits ..4

sending someone else

:

... use of reading room

w.

%at

k

24

22

significant only because of a very large sample.

In this

case, each of these variables explained only .01 of the variance of nonuse/use.

Neither affiliation with the College

of Liberal Arts nor affiliation with the Institute of Technology was correlated with nonuse/use of Document Delivery.

c) nonuse/use of Document Delivery was positively correlated with the degree to which the subjects reported calling a library for information and sending someone else to a library to obtain needed material. appeared to be trivial.

This latter correlation, however,

None of the other measures of use

of library services was significant.

Nonusers' Reasons For Nonuse of Document Delivery

The means of the.;.onusers1 responses to the questions measuringithe rea-

sons for nonuse (Questions 2.A - 2.1, Nonuser Questionnaire) are presented in Table 6.

These data indicate that the principal reasons for nonuse

appeared to be that the subjects felt that they could more easily obtain the documents they needed from the library and that they preferred to browse a subject area before selecting a document.

Interestingly, among the

least cited reasons for nonuse were the costs of the service, either to the subjects or the subjects' departments.

Correlates of Perceived Degree of Use of Document Delivery

In order to identify the correlatesof\ the users' perceived degree of use

of Document Delivery, the users' perceived degree of use (Question 2)

23

TABLE 6

'RANKING OF MEAN SCORES TO THE NONUSERS' RESPONSES,TO THE REASONS FOR NONUSE

REASON FOR NONUSE (FIVE-POINT SCALE)

X

N

S.D.

dor.ument can be obtained rJre easily from a library

302,

3,13

1.38

prefer to browse

302

2.79

1.31

... forget about using service

290

2.34

1.31

... lack a specific citation

302

2.32

1.25

need the document sooner than.it can be delivered

302

2.21

1.31

personal, cost inhibiting

302

2.15

1.35

document can be-obtained more easily from a colic.ague

290

2.01

1.00

302

1.90

1.35

289

1.65

1.-13

. .

. .

.

. ...

...department cost in inhibiting

prefer notto talk to the tape recorder

,

26

24

was regressed onto each of the following sets of variables:

a) academic status (dummy coded); b) collegiate affiliation (dummy coded); c) other uses. of library services on campus (Questions 9A - 11);

d) reasons for using the service (Questions 4A - F); e) reasons for not using the service for all of their document requirements (Questions 3.A - 3.1); and Oay

Cf) evaluations of the service (Questions 5, 7 and 8). The 'results of these analyses, reported in Table 7, indicate that A a)* perceived degree of use was not related to academic status.

b) perceived degree of use was positively correlated with

affiliation with the College of Education and not correlated with affiliations with,the College of Liberal Arts, General College, or Institute of Technology.

O'perceived degree of use was inversely correlated with the users' perceptions of how often they personally visit a library of the University Library system and not correlated with any of the other measures of use of library services.

d) perceived degree of use Was positively correlated with four of the five reasons for use.

These were, in order of strong-

est to weakest correlations:

"If the document is not immedi-

ately available, I appreciate Document Delivery's explanation", "Using Document Delivery saves me time", "Using Document Delivery is less frustrating", and "Usirig Document Delivery requires less effort."

Interestingly, the reason "I

expect Document Delivery will be more successful at finding

2.5

TABLE 7

CORRELATES OF PERCEIVED DEGREE OF USE OF DOCUMENT DELIVERY

VArgABLES

2

a

N

r

r

,101

.08

.01

n.s.

Research

101

-.10

.01.

n.s.

Professional/Administrative

101

.08

.01

n.s.

Academic Status Faculty

0

Collegiate Affiliation College of Liberal Arts

101

-.14

.02

n.s.

College of Education

101

.25

.06

.01

&neral College

101

.02

.00

n.s.

Institute of Technology

101

.-.08

.01

n.s.

Other Uses of Library Services ...

personal.visits

101

-.29

.08

...

sending someone else

101

-.01

.00

n.s.

...

calling a library

100

-.16

.03

n.s.

99

.02

.00

n.s..

49

-.-11-

.01

n.s.

access to department reading room ... use of reading room

.

.01

Reasons For Using Document Delivery ... saves time

99

.37

.14

.001

. ..

requires less effort

99

.22

.05

.01

. ..

is less frustrating

99

.34

.12

.001

...

Dooument Delivery will be more successful'

99

.12

.01

n.s.

appreciation of Document Delivery's follow-up

99

.39

.15

.001

. ..

0

26

TABLE 7 (cont'd)

CORRELATES OF PERCEIVED DEGREE OF USE OF DOCUMENT DELIVERY '

VARIABLES

N

r

r2

a

Reasons For Limited Use of Document Delivery ...

lack a specific citation

100

.07

.00

n.s.

...

prefer to browse

100

-.23

.05

.01

...

need the document sooner than it can be delivered

100

-.20

.04

.05

... personal cost inhibiting

100

-.13

.02

n.s.

...

department cost inhibiting

100

-.05

.00

n.s.

...

document can be obtained more easily from a library

100

-.24

.06

.01

document can be obtained more easily froth a colleague

97

.17

.03

.05

forget about using service

96

-.40

.16

.001

prefer not to talk to tlid tape recorder

96

-.22

.05

.05

98

.23

.05

100

.42

.18

.001

98

.52

.27

.001

...

...

Evaluations of Document Delivery ...

satisfaction with service

...

importance of availability of service

... budget priority for service

29

.

.01

27

the document" was not correlated with perceived degree of use.

e) perceived degree of use was inversely correlated with five of the nine reasons for limited use. strongest to weakest correlations:

They were, in order of "1r forget about Document

Delivery", "I can easily obtain the document I need from a library of the University system without using Document Delivery", "I prefer to browse my subject area before selecting a document", "I prefer not to talk to a tape recorder answering machine", and "I need the document sooner than it Perceived degree of use was surprisingly

can be delivered."

correlated positively with "I can easily obtain the &cu.

ment I need from a colleague" and not correlated with "I know in general what I need but lack a specific citation", "I

find the cost of using Document Delivery inhibiting" and "My department finds the cost of using Document Delivery inhibiting."

f) perceived degree of use was positively correlated with satisfaction with the service, importance to the user of the availability of the service, and the user's opinion of the budget priority that the library should give to Document Delivery.

'

Correlates of the Estimated Proportions of Document Requests for Teachin and Research Efforts

While it was realized that the subjects' estimates of the percent of requests that were initiated to support their teaching efforts should have

28

been the obverse of their estimates of the percent of reque

s that were

initiated to support their research efforts, each of the e estimates (Questions 6 A and 6 B) was in turn regressed onto

ach of the following

sets of variables:

a) academic status (dummy coded), b) collegiate affiliation (dummy coded);

//

3

c) other uses of librar d) reasons for usi e) reasons for ments

services on campus (Questions 9A - 11);

the service (Questions 4A - F);

of using the service for all document.require-

uestions 3.A - 3.1); and

f) evaluations of the service (Questions 5, 7 and 8). The i,esul-5s of these analyses, reported in Tables 8 and 9, indicate that /./

a) neither estimate was correlated with, academic status.

b) the estimate of the percent of requests that were initiated to support teaching efforts was positively correlated'with affiliation with General College and the College of Education (albeit weakly), inversely correlated with affiliation with

the Institute of Technology, and not correlated with affiliation with the College of Liberal Arts.

The estimate of the percent of requests that were initiated to support research efforts was Inversely correlated witb affiliation with the College of Education and with General College, positively correlated with affiliation with the Institute of Technology, and not correlated with affiliation with the College of Liberal Arts.

31

All three of these corre-

a

29

TABLE 8

CORRELATES OF THE ESTIMATED PROPORTIONS OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS FOR TEACHING EFFORTS

VARIABLES

2

N

r

r

Faculty

107

.12

.01

n.s.

Research

107

-.14

.02

n.s.

Professional/Administrative

107

.13

.02

n.s.

College of Liberal Arts

107

-.01

.00

n.s.

College of Education

107

.18

.03

.05

General College

107

.31

.10

.001

Institute of Technology

107

-.28

.08

.01

107

-.12

.01

n.s.

a

Apadpmin Status.

Collegiate Affiliation

Other Uses, of Library Services

SOO personal visits SOO

sending' someone else

107

-,.02

.00

n.s.

...

calling a library'

107

-.14

.02

n.s.

106

-.06

.00

n.s.

53

-.13

.02

n.s.

106

.1Y2

.01

n.s.

requires less effort

106

.01

.00

n.s.

is less frustrating

106

'-`-.02

.00

n.s.

6e* Document Delivery will be more successful

106

-.04

.00

n.s.

OS* appreciation of Document Delivery's follow-up

106

.08

.01

n.s.

SOO access to department reading room

use of reading room

Reasons For Usin

Document Delivery

... saves time

...

32

30

TABLE 8

(cont'd)

COR,RELATES OF THE ESTIMATED PROPORTIONS OF /DOCUMENT REQUESTS FOR TEACHING EFFORTS

y,AiIABLES

r

r

2

a

-Reasons For Limited Use of Document Delivery .. .

lack a specific citation

97

.11

.01

n.s.

.. .

prefer to browse

97

.02

.00

n.s.

.. .

need the document sooner than it can be delivered

97

-.20

.04

.05

personal cost inhibiting

97

.15

.02

n.s.

department cost inhibiting

97

.23

.05

.01

document can be obtained more easily from a library

97

-.24

.06

.01

.01

n.s.

.. .

.

.

.

. . .

document can be obtained more easily from a colleague 93 forget about using service

93

-.02

.00

n.s.

prefer not to talk to the tape recorder

92

-.12

.01

n.s.

Evaluations of Document Delivery ...

satisfaction with service

104

.13

.02

n.s.

...

importance of availability of service

106

.05

.00

n.s.

budget priority for service 104

.21

.04

.05 7

...

31

TABLE 9

'CORRELATES OFTHE ESTIMATED PROPORTIONS OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS FOR RESEARCH EFFORTS

VARIABLES-

N

a

r

Academic Status Faculty

_

112

Research

112

Professional/Administrative

112

4

.13

.02

n.s.

.00

n.s.

.02

n.s.

.00

n.s.,

P

Collegiate Affiliation

College of Liberal Arts

112

College of Education

112

-.19

.04

.05

General College

112

-.15

.02

.05

instituteafTedinclogit

112

.18

.03

.05

112

.05

.00

-'n.s.

112

.06

.00

n.'s.

112-..".

.11

.01

n.s.

.111

.07

.01

n.s.

56

.06

.00

n.s.

111

.05

:00

n.s.

111 ,

.01

.00

n.s.

is less frustrating

111

.01

.00

n.s.

Document Delivery will be more successful

111

.01

.00

n.s.

appreciation of Document Delivery's follow-up

111

.00

.00

.00.

Other Uses of Library Services ... personal visits wt.. sending someone else ....calling a library

... access to department reading room ... use of reading room

' Reasons For Using

. saves

Deliver

anent

time

..-,requires less effort

34

/

n.s.

TAB

(cont'd)

CORRELATES 0 THE ESTIMATED PROPORTIONS OF DOCUMENT EQUESTS FOR RESEARCH EFFORTS

VARIABLES

a

Reasons/for Limited Use of Documefit Delivery

101

-.02

.00

n.s.

.4* prefer to browse

101

-.01

.00

n:s.

...need the document sooner than it can be delivered

101

.17

.03

.05

... personal cost inhibiting

101

-.17

.03

.05,

... /

,

lack a specific citation

...

department cost inhibiting

101

=.17

.03

.05

...

document can be obtained more easily from a library

101

.05

.00

n.s.

more easily from a colleague

97

.15

.02

n.s.

forget about using service

96

-.02

.00

ns.

96

.18

.03

n.s.

...doctmmitteanh,eebtained ...

.1. prefer not to talk to the tape recorder

Evaluations of Document Delivery ...

satisfaction with service

109

.03

.00

n.s.

...

importance of availability of service

111

.07

.01

n.s.

budget priority for service

109

.10

.01

n.s.

...

35

,

33

lations, however, were quite weak.

c) neither estimate was correlated with other uses of library services on campus.

d) neither estimate was correlated with the reasons for using the service.

e) the estimate of the percent of requests that were initiated to support teaching efforts was inversely correlated with the following reasona,for limited use of Document Delivery,

"I can easily obtain the document I need from a library of the University system without using Document Delivery" and "I need the document sooner than it can be delivered", and

positively correlated with "My department finds the cost of using Document Delivery inhibiting." were weak.

All three correlations

None of the remaining reasons for limited use was

significant.

The estimate of the percent ofrequests that were initiated to support research efforts was inversely correlated with the following reasons for limited use of Document Delivery, :'My department finds the cost of using Document De-

livery inhibiting" and "I find the cost of using Document

Delivery inhibiting", and positively correlated with "I need the document sooner, than it can be delivered." correlations were weak.

All three

None of the remaining reasons for

limited use was significant.

f) the estimate of the percent of requests that were initiated to support teaching efforts was positively correlated with

36

34

the user's opinion of the budget priority that the library should give to Document Delivery and not correlated with CV

either satisfaction with the service or the importance to the user of the availability of the service.

The estimate

of the percent of requests that were initiated to support research efforts was not correlated with any of the evaluationS.

DISCUSSION

Before entering into a discussion and interpretation of the results of the data analyses; it would be useful to note the limitations of the survJy. First, the survey was limited to a population of faculty at a single, large, urban, research university. cal for a mail survey, was'only 5215.

Second, the response rate, while typi-

Third, the questionnaire was designed

to measure some fairly complex behaviors for which the subjects were required to make. sophisticated distinctions.

Fourth, the questionnaire

measured recall of past behavior or currently held opinions.

Fifth, the

sample of users, whose data received the most detailed analyses posed of only .114 subjects.

was com-

Sixth, the relationships reported in the

data analyses were not particularly strong; in fact, most were quite weak.

Consequently, while we offer the following interpretations of the data analyses, tendencies to generalize From these results should be tempered, by these limitations.

35

Correlates of Nonuse/Use of Document.Delivery

The data analyses indicated that there were, in effect, no differences between nonusers and users either in terms of their academic status or their collegiate affiliation.

In addition, there did not appear to be any

difference between nonusers and users in the degree to which they reported personally visiting libraries on campus.

Access to a departmental

reading room (i.e. as distinct from access to a university departmental library) did not appear to affect nonuse/use of Document Delivery.

How-

ever, users of Document Delivery reported a greater tendency to call the library for information or assistance and to send someone to the library to get material.

This suggests some intriging possibilities.

Users of

Document Delivery may, have a stronger tendency to seek assistance or to

use the service of others when confronted with an information need.

Users

may have better defined information needs or perhaps an ability to articulate better their needs.

They may simply have established a working re-

lationship with the staff, lor a particular staff member, in a library.

Among nonusers, the principal reasons for nonuse appear to be the ease with which they feel they can obtain documents from a library, their preference to browse for documents and their tendency to have a generalized need for information, ap opposed to a need for a specific document. It appears therefore that the nonuse or use of Document Delivery may be a function of either the nature of the information need experienced by the faculty member or the faculty member's style of information-seeking, or both.

36

Correlates of Perceived Degree of Use of Document Delivery

The data analyses indicated that, among users of Document Delivery, the perceived degree of use was?not related to academic status.

Members of

the College of Education reported a higher degree of use then did the members of the other collegiate units.

The reasons for using Document

Delivery that were most highly correlated with the degree of use were the appreciation for the follow-up to a request provided by Document Delivery when a document was not immediately available and the convenience factors of saving time and minimizing frustration and effort.

The

reasons for not using Document Delivery all of the time appear to be for-

getfulness (which we suspect may be a-cloaking variable for some sort of internal system for establishing the priority'of a document requirement),

urgency of the need for the document and getting the document from a library either personally or perhaps by sending someone else.

Not sur-

prisingly, the greater the degree of use of Document Delivery, the less: Given

frequently the subjects reported personally visiting a library.

that there was no difference between users and nonusers of Document De,

livery in terms of how frequently they reportedly visit a library, it

would seem that either Document Delivery is provididg a service that supplements the document needs of faculty aboite and beyond that which

they would have availed themselves had not Document Delivery been avail.

able, or users of Document Delivery are heavier user:: of libraries than

nonusers of Document Delivery but some of their use is being absorbed by Document Delivery.

As was expected, the greater the degree cf use of

Document Delivery, the higher the evaluations of the service.

37

Our attempts at identifying correlates of use of Document Delivery for teaching effort

and research efforts wine not: very sul.cess.A11.

Either the questions deSigned to elicit estimates of use for teaching and research purposes yielded imprecise data or the distinction between of documents for teaching or research is not a useful one.

Aside

from weak correlations between affiliation with General College, the college of Education find use of documents for teaching, and affiliation

with the institute of Technology and use of documents for research, nothing-much of ,interest was revealed in the data analyses.

41.

APPENDIX A

41

39

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES

University Libraries Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

March 23, 1984

Dear Colleague,

During the current academic year, the Institute of Technology Libraries have provided a Document Delivery service to assist you in retrieving documents (i.e. books, journal articles, microforms) from the University Library system. As part of an externally funded project to study the impact of a delivery service on faculty use of library resources, we are conducting surveys of bocument Delivery users and nonusers. The purposes of these surveys are to detdimine the degree to which faculty and other University-personnel use Document Delivery and to identify factors which affect their use of the service. As a user of Document Delivery, you are in a position to provide us with much of this information; and, given the small size of our population, your participation is very important for the success of the user survey. We would appreciate your taking the time (about 5-10 minutes) to oamplete the enclosed questionnaire. The anonymity of your responses will be respected and the data will be reported only in the aggregate. For your convenience we have provided an addressed return-envelope. If you should have any questions about the questionnaire, please do not hesitate to call the project director, George D'Elia, at 3-3100. We hope that you will take the opportunity to participate in this We would appreciate your returning the questionnaire as soon as possible, but no later than April 4. Thank you for your cooperation. proje-A..

Sincerely,

/ 411

Ray BOhling, Acting Director Institute of Technoyny Libraries f./1 -.d''

Andrea Minding, Director Walter Library

42

40

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES

University Libraries Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

March 23, 1984

Dear Colleague,

During the current academic year, Walter Library has provided a Document Delivery service to assist you in retrieving documents (i.e. books, journal articles, microforms) fram the University Library system. As part Of an externally funded project to study the impact of a delivery service on faculty use of library resources, we are conducting surveys of Document Delivery users and nonusers. The purposes of these surveys are to determine the degree to which faculty and other University personnel use Dodument Delivery and to identify factors which affect their ube of the service. As a user of Document Delivery, you are in a position to provide us with much of this information; and, given the shall size of our population, your participation is very important for the success of the user survey. We would appreciate your taking the time (about 5-10 minutes) to complete the enclosed questionnaire. The anollYmity of your responses will be respected and the data will be reported only in the aggregate. For your convenience we have provided an addressed return envelope. If you should have any questions about the questionnaire, please do not hesitate to call the project director, George D'Elia, at 3-3100. We hope that you will take the opportunity to participate in this project. We would appreciate your returning the questionnaire as soon as possible, but no later than April 4. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Andrea Binding, Director Walter Library

ti

4tee',4,

Ray Bohling, Acting Director Institute of Technology Libraries

DOCUMENT DELIVERY PROJECT: USER SURVEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY LIBRARIES WALTER LIBRARY

FUNDED BY THE COUNCIL OF LIBRARY RESOURCES

Dear Colleague:

Thank you for participatingin st6dY. In competing this questionnTaFT pTease note that we are interested only in the documents you obtain from libraries in the University 14brarY system, not in the documents you obtil-FTfai departmentirFiaUTFT7Uas orTEurnal collections. For your information, a list of official University libraries is appended to the questionnaire. Please refer to this list if you have any doubts about the status of the libraries.that you use. 1.

In addition to using the Document Delivery service, do you also try to obtain documents from the'library system either personally or through someone else (e.g., a colleague, student, or departmental staff person)? YES, I do try to obtain some ,documents from the University Library system myself or through someone else. (PLEASE PROCEED TO.QUESTION 2.) r.

2-

NO, I use the Document Delivery serv'ce whenever I need a document from the University Library system. (PLEASE SKIP QUESTIONS 2 AND 3 AND PROCEED DIRECTLY TO QUESTION 4, ON PAGE 2.)

_Coraildex_ing all theAocuments "that you have sought_from the University Library system this current academid year, what is your estimate of the percent you requested through Document Delivery? .

fewer than 20%

3.

20-39%.

40-59%

60-79%

80% or more

There are probably a variety of reasons why you choose at times not to use the Document Delivery service. We would like to get some sense of what these reasons might be. The statements that follow describe possible reasons why someone might choose at times not to use Document Delivery. Using the scale at the right, please indicate the degree to which each statement is applicable to you by checking the appropriate response category. Please be sure to respond to each ktatement. Not at all Applicable

A.

I know in general what I need but lack a specific citation.-

B.

I prefer to browse my subject area before selecting a document.

C.

I need the document sooner than it can be delivered.

D.

I find the cost of using Document Delivery inhibiting.

E.

My department finds the cost of using Document Delivery inhibiting.

F.

I can easily obtain the document I need from a library of the University system without using Document Delivery.

Slightly 'Applicable

Mbderately Applicable

Strongly Applicable

0.1.1..10.1

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE.

44

Very Strongly Applicable

41.01.1n11....

42

Not at all Applicable' G.

I can easily obtain the document I need from a colleague.

H.

I forget about Document Delivery.

I.

I prefer not to talk to a taperecorder answering machine.

J.

Do you have any other reasons? Please specify:

4.

Slightly Applicable

Moderately Applicable

Strongly Applicable

Very Strongly Applicable

We would also like to identify the reasons why you choose to use the Document Delivery service. The statements that follow describe possible reasons why someone might choose to use Document Delivery rather than trying to obtain a document from the University Library system either personally or through someone else. Using the scale at the right, please indicate the degree to which each statement'is applicable to you by checkihg-tne-$ pprOpriate-rrsponse-category. Please be sure. to respond toyeach statement.

A.

Not at all Applicable

Slightly Applicable

.

.1*

Moderately Applicable

Strongly Applicable

Very Strongly Applicable

Using Document Delivery saves me time.

H.

Using Document Delivery requires less effort.

C.

Using Document Delivery is less frustrating.

D.

I expect Document Delivery will be more successful at finding the document.

E.

If the document is not immediately available, 'I appreciate Document Delivery's explanation.

.1=111110.

WIIIIIIM

F.

Do you have any other reasons? Please specify:

5.

In general, how satisfied are you with the Document Delivery service? Strongly dissatisfied

Moderately dissatisfied

Slightly dissatisfied

Slightly satisfied

Moderately satisfied

Strongly satisfied

43

6.

Considering all of your requests to Document Delivery during the current academic year,

A.

80% or more

60-79%

40-59%

20-39%

Strongly important

Moderately important

Slightly important

Which of the following statements best describes the priority you think the library should give a Document Delivery service in. a time of tight budgets?

priority

Very high priority

High priority

Medium priority

Low

We would like to gather data on your estimate of how often you use, for whatever reason, any library of the University Library system. A.

About how often do you personally visit a library of the University Library system? Less than once a month

Never

B.

C.

Once a month

More than once a week

Once a week

2-3 times a month

About how often do you send someone else to a library of the University Library system to get what:you need? Less than once a month

Never

Once a month

2-3 times a month

Less than once a month

Once a month

Mare than once a week

a

More than once a week

Once a week

2-3 times a month

Does your department have a department library, staff library, or reading room (not part of the University Library system)? Yes (PLEASE PROCEED TO QUESTION 11.)

No (PLEASE SKIP QUESTION 11 AND PROCEED TO QUESTION 12, 'ON PAGE 4.)

11.

.

About how often do you call a library of the University Library system for information or assistance (not including Document Delivery)? Never

10.

80% or more

60-79%

How important to you is the availability of a University Library Document Delivery service?

Very low priority,

9.

.

What is your estimate of the percent that were initiated to support your research efforts?

Unimportant

8.

40-59%

20-39%

fewer than 20%

7.

.

What is your,estimate of the percent that wereinitiated to support your teaching efforts? fewer than 20%

B.

.

Now frequently do you use-this department library, staff library, or reading room?

dirolii.01.11.

Never .

Less than once a month

Once a month

2-3 times a month

Once a week

More than once a week

44

Finally, we need a little information about you to help us analyze the preceding questions. 12.

What is your rank at the University of Minnesota? (Please check only one response.) Regents' Professor

Research Associate

Professor

Research Fella.;

Associate Professor

Professional/Achinistrative

Assistant Professor

Other:

Instructor

13.

With what college are you associated?

(Please check only one response.)

College of Liberal Arts

Institute of Technology

College of Education

Other:

General College

13a.

Please specify your department, school, or division:

Thank you for your help. remaining space.

Please feel free to add any further comments or suggestions in the

45

Minnesota University Library System

Ames Library Anderson Horticultural Library Architecture Library Archives (University Archives) Art Library Bio-Medical Librzry Bio-Chemistry Library Chemical Engineering Library Chemistry Library Children's Literature Research Collections East Asian Library.

Education, Psychology, and Library Science Library Engineering Library Entomology Library Eric Sevareid Library (Journalism) Forestry Library Geology Library. Government Publications Library Immigration History Research Center Collections James Ford Bell Library Journalists Library (Eric Sevareid Library) Law Library.

Manuscripts Collection Map Library

Mathematia-Library Middle East Library Mines, Metallurgy & Chemical Engineering Library Music Library Natural History Library Physics Library Plant Pathology Library Public Administration Library St. Paul Campus Central Library Social Welfare History Archives Special Collections and Rare Books Library Tenant Memorial Library University Archives Veterinary Medical Library Walter Library Wangensteen Library Wilson Library

*list prepared from Univer A Guide.

of Minnesota Libraries, Twin Cities:

46

UNIVERSIVOtURIESOTA TWIN CITIES

University Libraries Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

April 5, 1984

Dear Colleague,

Last week we invited you to participate in a study of the Document Delivery service offered by Walter Library and the Institute We had asked that you complete the questionnaire of Technology Libraries. If you have already that was enclosed and return it to us by April 4. done so, we thank you. If you haven't yet had the chance to complete the questionnaire, we hope that this reminder will encourage you to take the time to do As .a researcher, you are no doubt aware of how important the SQ. participation of each and every subject is to the success of a survey. We do need your help in bringing this study a...out faculty use of library resources to a successful crnclusion.

We would appreciate your completing and returning the-questionnaire If you need as soon as possible, but no later than Tuesday, April 10. another copy of the questionnaire, please call the project director, Thank you for your cooperation. George D'Elia, at 3-3100. Sincerely,

Andrea Hinding, Director Walter Library

Ray Bohling, Acting Director Institute of Technology Libraries

49

47

TABLE A.1

'

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: USER QUESTIONNAIRE

N

QUESTION NUMBER

1.

...

obtain some documents from library yourself YES NO .

2.

102 11

S.D.

% /

88.7% 9.6%

estimate of percent of documents requested through Document Delivery. 101

2.61

1.50

on 103 lack a specific specifiitati c

2.94

1.47

103

2.93

1.18

need the document sooner than it can be delivered103

2.58

1.35

personal cost inhibiting 103

1.48

.88

department cost inhibiting

103

1.50

1.01

document can be obtained more easily from a 103 library

2.46

1.33

99

1.92

.89

... forget about using service

98

1.63

1.03

... prefer not to talk to the tape recorder

98

1.33

.77

112

4.48

.88

112

4.33

.95

C. ... is less frustrating

112

3.74

1.44

D. ... Document Delivery will be more successful

112

'3.18

1.66

112

3.40

1.52

...

3. A.

... -

B.

.. . prefer to browse

C.

...

D.

...

E.

.

F.

.

...

G. ... document can be obtained more easily from a colleague H.

I.

4. A. ... saves time B.

...

requires less effort

E. ... appreciation of Document

Delivery's follow-up

48

TABLE A.1 (cont'd)

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: USER QUESTIONNAIRE

N

QUESTION NUMBER

S.D.

% /

112

5.73

.50

6. A. ... percent of documents for teaching 107

2.03

1.28

B. ... percent of documents for 112 research

3.83

1.361

114

3.65

.55

budget priority for service 112

3.95

.95

3.98

1.41

115

2.70

1.46

114

2.71

1.19

4.03

1.74

b.

... satisfaction with service

A

7.

8.

.

-.

...

importance of availability of service

9. A. ... personally visit a . library B. ... send someone, else to a library C.

10.

... call a library

'

... access to department reading room

YES NO 11.

115

58 55

.

47.8% 50.4%

... use of department .reading

room

58 5

4.3%

56

48.7%

Associate Professor

16

13.9%

Assistant Professor

18

15.7%

Instructor

2

1.7%

Research Associate

6

5.2%

Research Fellow

0

0.0%

Professional/Administrative

4

3.5%

Other

8

7.0%

12. Regents' Professor Professor

..

149

INN

TABLE A.1 (cont'd) DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: USER QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTION NUMBER

13. College of Liberal. Arts

N

% /

17

14.8%

35

30.4%

4

3.5%

Institute of Technology

43

37.4%

Other

16

13.9%

College of Education General College

ci 2

X

S.D.

APPENDIX B

53

51

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES

University Libraries Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

March 23, 1984,

e

Deal. Colleaguet

During the current academic year, Walter Library has provided a

Dent Delivery service to assist the faculty in retrieving documents (i.e, books, journal articles, nicroforms) from the University Library system. As part of an externally funded project to study the impact of a delivery service on faculty use of library resources, we are conducting surveys of Document Dllivery users and nonusers. The purpose of these surveys is to identify factors which affect faculty use or nonuse of ilocument Delivery,

Since you have' not used bocument Delivery this academic year (beginning September 1983), you are being considered, for the purposes of this study, a nonuser of the service. As such, you could provide us with helpful information about reasons for nonuse. We would appreciate your taking a few minutes,- 5-10 at most, to complete the enclosed questionnaire. The anonymity of, your responses will be respected and the data will be reported only in the aggregate. For your convenience we have provided an addressed return envelope. It would help us considerably if you could complete and return your questionnaire as tuickly as possible, or by April 4 at the latest.

We hope that you will participate in this study and help make it a success. If you should have any questions about the questionnaire, please do not hesitate to call the project director, George D'Elia, at 3-3100. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Andrea Minding, Director Walter Library 'Je

v

ala/44,g.

Ray Bohling, Acting Director Institute of Technology Libraries

54

52

ISSI

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES

University Libraries Minneapolis,.Minnesota 55455

A

March 23, 1984

Dear Colleague,

During the current academic year, the Institute of Technology Libraries have provided a Document Delivery service to assist the faculty in retrieving documents (i.e. books, journal articles, microforms) from the University Library system. As part of gn externally funded project to study the impact of a gelivery service on faculty use of Ubrary resources, we are conducting surveys of Document Delivery users and nonusers. The purpose of these surveys is to identify factors which affect faculty use or nonuse of Document Delivery. Since you have not used Document Delivery this academic year (beginning September 1983), you are being considered, for the purposes of this study, a nonuser of the service. As such, you could provide us with helpful information about reasons for nonuse. We would appreciate your taking' a few minutes, 5-10 at most,"to complete the enclosed questionnaire. Ole anonymity of your responses will be respected and the data will be reported only in the aggregate. For your convenience we have provided an addressed return envelope. It would help us considerably if you could complete and return your questionnaire as quickly as possible, or by April 4 at the latest.

We hope that you will participate in this study and help make it a success. If you should have any questions about the questionnaire, please do not hesitate4to call the project director, George D'Elia, at 3-3100. Thalik you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Ray Bohling, Acting Director .Institute of Technology Libraries'

Andrea Binding, Director Walter Library

55

53

DOCUMENT DELIVERY PROJECT: NONUSER SURVEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY LIBRARIES WALTER LIBRARY

FUNDED BY THE COUNCIL OF LIBRARY RESOURCES

,Dear Colleague:

Thank you for participating in this study. In completing this questionnaire, please note that we are interested only in the documents you obtain from libraries in the University. Library system, not in the documents you obtain from departmental reading TZEis oz3;urnal collections. For your information, a list of official University libraries is appended to the questionnaire. Please refer to this list if you have any doubts about the status of the libraries that you use.

1.

Before this survey,4were you aware of the Document Delivery service? Yes (PLEAS' PROCEED TO QUESTION 2.)

No

Now thatryou are aware of Document Delivery is-there a likelihood of/your using this service in the future? No

Yes

(PLEASE SKIP QUESTION 2 AND PROCEED DIRECTLY TO QUESTION 3, ON PAGE 2.)

2.

There are probably a variety of reasons why you choose not to use the Document Delivery service. We would like to get some sense of what these reasons might be. The statements that follow describe possible reasons why someone might choose not to use Document Delivery. Using the scale at the right, please indicate the degree to which each statement is applicable to you by checking the appropriate response category. Please be, sure to respond to each statement. Not at all Applicable

A.

I know in general what I need but lack a specific citation.

B.

I prefer to browse my subject area before selecting a document.

C.

I need the document sooner than it can be delivered.

D.

I find the cost of using Document Delivery inhibiting.

0

E.

F.

My department finds the cost of using Document Delivery inhibiting.

Slightly Applicable

.ly .MOde Appll_e_ele

Strongly Applicable

Ma.

I can easily obtain the document ei I need from a library of the University system without using Document Delivery.

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE.

Very Strongly Applicable

54

Not at all Applicable

Moderately Applicable

Slightly Applicable

Strongly Applicable

Very Strongly Applicable

G.

I can easily obtain the document I need from a colleague.

H.

I forget about Document Delivery.

I.

I prefer not to talk to a taperecorder answering machine.

J.

Do you have any other reasons? Please gpecifyi

3.

We would like to gather data on your estimate of how often you use, for whatever reason, any library of the University Library system. A.

About how often do you personally visit a library of the University Libary system?

Never

Less than

once amonth

B.

Less than once a month

2-3 times a month

Once a month

Less than once a month

2-3 times a month

Once a month

Once a week

More than once a week

Does your department have a department library, staff library, or reading room (not part of the University Library system)? No

Yes (PLEASE PROCEED TO QUESTION 5.)

5.

More than once a week

Once a week

About how often do you call a library of the University Library system for information or assistance (not including Document Delivery)?

Never

4.

More than once a week

Once a week

About how often do you send someone else to a library of the University Library system to get what you need?

Never

C.

2-3 times a month

Once a month

(PLEASE SKIP QUESTION 5 AND PROCEED TO QUESTION 6, ON PAGE 3.)

How frequently do you use this department library, staff library, or reading room? Less than once a month

Once a month

times a month 2

57

Once a week

More than once a week

55

Finally, we needa little information about you to help us analyze the preceding questions.

6.

What is your rank at the University of Minnesota?

(Please check only one response.)

Regents' Professor

Research Associate

Professor

Research Fellow

Associate Professor

Professional/Administrative

Aisistant.IProfessor

Instructor

7.

With what college are you associated?

(Please check only one response.)

College of Liberal Arts

Institute of Technology

College of Education

Other:

General College

7a.

ple-se specify your department, school, or division:

Thank you for your help. remaining space.

Please feel free to add any further comments or suggestions in the

56

Minnesota University Library System

Ames Library Anderson Horticultural Library Architecture Library Archives (University Archives) Art Library Bio-Medical Library Dio-Chemistry Library Chemical Engineering Library Chemistry Library Children's Literature Research Collections East Asian Library Education, Psycholbgy, and Library Science Library Engineering Library Entomology Library Eric Sevareid Library (Journalism) Forestry Library Geology Libr ications Library Government Immigration His ory Research Center Collections James Ford Bell Library Journalism Library (Eric Sevareid Library) Law Library

e

Manuscripts. Collection Map Library

Mathematics Library Middle East Library Mines, Metallurgy & Chemical Engineering Library Music Library Natural History Library Physics Library Plant Pathology Library Public Administration Library St. Paul Campus Central Library Social Welfare History Archives Special Collections and Rare Books Library Tenant Memorial Library University Archives Ce. Veterinary Medical Library Walter Library Wangensteen Library Wilson Library

*list prepared from University of Minnesota Libraries, Twin Cities: A Guide.

fj

59

57

LSI

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES

University Libraries Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

April 5, 1984

.

Dear Colleague,

Last week we invited you to participate in a study of the Document Delivery service offered by Walter Library and the Institute of Technology Libraries. We had asked that you complete the questionnaire If you have already that was enclosed and return it to us by April 4. done so, we thank you.. If you haven't yet had the chance to complete the questionnaire, we hope that this reminder will encourage you to take the time to do As a researcher, you are no doubt aware of how important the so. participation of each and every subject is to the success of a survey. We do need your help in bringing this study about faculty use of library resources to a successful conclusion.

We would appreciate your completing and returning the questionnaire If you need as soon as possible, but no later than Tuesday, April 10. another copy of the questionnaire, please call the project director, George D'Elia, at 3-3100. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely,

Andrea Hinding, Director Walter Library /'/

/' L

Ray Bohling, Acting Director Institute of Technology Libraries

58

TABLE B.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: NONUSER QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTION NUMBER

N

S.D.

%

111011.1014.1111

1.

... aware of Document Delivery YES NO ...

2. A.

if no, likelihood of use YES NO

66.2% 32.8%

93 42

60.7% 27.5%

... lack a specific citation 302

2.32

1.25

302

2.79

1.31

than it can be delivered 302

2.21

1.31

prefer to browse

B.

...

C.

... need the document sooner

D.

...

personal cost inhibiting 302

2.15

1.35

E.

...

department cost inhibiting

302

1.90

1.35

document can be obtained more easily from a 302 library

3.13

1.38

... document can be obtained more easily from a 290 colleague

2.01

1.00

290

2.34

1.31

prefer not to talk to the 289 tape recorder

1.65

1.13

461

3.88

1.48

461

2.21

1.36

460

2.05

.87

F.

G.

...

Ot H.

I.

...

...

forget about using service

3. A. ... personally visit a library B.

C. 4.

309 153

send someone else to a library ... call a library

... access to department reading room YES 256 NO 207

54.8% 44.3%

59

TABLE B.1..(cont'd)

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: NONUSER QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTION NUMBER

5.

... use of department reading room

6. Regents' Professor

N

% /

256 .4%

A5

43.9%

.99

21.2%

Assistant Professor

69

14.8%

Instructor

10

2.1%

Research Associate

7

1.5%

Research Fellow

8

1.7%

Professional/Administrative

24

5.1%

Other

43

9.2%

7. College of Liberal Arts

73

15.6%

College of Education

88

18.8%

General College

59

13.6%

205

43.9%

42

9.0%

Associate Professor-,

S.D.

4.04

2

Professor

X

1.67

I

Institute of Technology Other

et,