FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W250219036> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W250219036 endingPage "39" @default.
• W250219036 startingPage "32" @default.
• W250219036 abstract "This empirical study identifies factors that are related to the use of electronic information in academic libraries. Length of use, form of access, technology in use, availability of instruction, and full text availability are all statistically related to use. A weighting system for evaluating electronic resources is proposed. Use-based criteria offer promise for selecting and retaining electronic information resources. Use-based criteria are composed of those factors that affect usage in a positive or negative manner. Use-based criteria are sensitive to the rapid change that is endemic to electronic information. When use-based measures can be identified, it becomes possible to determine the extent to which certain factors contribute to the success of a database at a specific library. This results-based approach to selection and retention also permits constant fine-tuning and elaboration. And, in this time of limited resources, it keeps the selection focus on the user. While use-based criteria are the focus of this study, they should not be used alone. Qualitative measures, such as assessments of content, relevancy, and use of features, must also be used along with usage data, like this research, to make final decisions on selection and retention.[1] In the United States, only Meyer has proposed a use-based model for selection of electronic information.[2] Meyer's model recognizes the importance of the cost to the user and the library. It also identifies factors such as interface friendliness, links-to-holdings, and full-text availability as critical factors in assuring the effectiveness of particular databases. Meyer's model forms the theoretical starting point for this empirical assessment, which considers length of use, redundancy of access, technology in use, full-text availability, and provision of library instruction. The impetus for this particular study arose from a management decision at the New Mexico State University (NMSU) Library. In the spring of 1995, the library purchased tape-loaded versions of two general bibliographic databases. It had also built a local-area network for use of CD-ROM databases in the library and on campus. In late summer of 1995, it was our good fortune to also have the opportunity to participate in a group purchase of FirstSearch along with other colleges and universities in New Mexico and west Texas. After careful consideration, the NMSU Library decided not to participate during the first year. Instead, we decided to use the year to collect data comparing the use of different access technologies and databases. The result is the following case study designed to identify use-based criteria for the selection and retention of electronic information. Case Study Design The case study is intended to identify differences in the use of electronic resources among academic libraries that are associated with the following factors: 1. Length of use: less than fifteen months or fifteen months or longer 2. Access: only/primary access or secondary access 3. Technology in use: CD-ROM, local tape-mounted, or Internet access 4. Instruction provided: yes or no 5. Full-text availability: yes or no. Some factors are confounded with others at particular institutions for particular databases. As a result, usage differences among institutions may sometimes be a result of a set of factors, not just one. Care must be taken in interpreting such differences. The statistical analysis is based on a randomized complete block design of repeated (monthly) measures for each participating institution. Monthly usage counts are normed by enrollment, as measured by total enrollment in the case of general databases, by FTE undergraduate enrollment for major, by FTE enrollment of graduate students for major, and by credit hour production by department in the case of specialized databases. SAS software has been used to carry out analysis of variance (anova) to compare institutions and to examine patterns of usage over time. …" @default.
• W250219036 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W250219036 creator A5016033412 @default.
• W250219036 creator A5021550780 @default.
• W250219036 date "1999-03-01" @default.
• W250219036 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W250219036 title "Use-based criteria for selecting and retaining electronic information: a case study" @default.
• W250219036 hasPublicationYear "1999" @default.
• W250219036 type Work @default.
• W250219036 sameAs 250219036 @default.
• W250219036 citedByCount "13" @default.
• W250219036 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W250219036 hasAuthorship W250219036A5016033412 @default.
• W250219036 hasAuthorship W250219036A5021550780 @default.
• W250219036 hasConcept C120665830 @default.
• W250219036 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W250219036 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W250219036 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W250219036 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W250219036 hasConcept C183115368 @default.
• W250219036 hasConcept C192209626 @default.
• W250219036 hasConcept C23123220 @default.
• W250219036 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W250219036 hasConcept C56739046 @default.
• W250219036 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W250219036 hasConcept C78999398 @default.
• W250219036 hasConcept C81917197 @default.
• W250219036 hasConceptScore W250219036C120665830 @default.
• W250219036 hasConceptScore W250219036C121332964 @default.
• W250219036 hasConceptScore W250219036C126838900 @default.
• W250219036 hasConceptScore W250219036C136764020 @default.
• W250219036 hasConceptScore W250219036C154945302 @default.
• W250219036 hasConceptScore W250219036C183115368 @default.
• W250219036 hasConceptScore W250219036C192209626 @default.
• W250219036 hasConceptScore W250219036C23123220 @default.
• W250219036 hasConceptScore W250219036C41008148 @default.
• W250219036 hasConceptScore W250219036C56739046 @default.
• W250219036 hasConceptScore W250219036C71924100 @default.
• W250219036 hasConceptScore W250219036C78999398 @default.
• W250219036 hasConceptScore W250219036C81917197 @default.
• W250219036 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W250219036 hasLocation W2502190361 @default.
• W250219036 hasOpenAccess W250219036 @default.
• W250219036 hasPrimaryLocation W2502190361 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W1612299368 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W1814758619 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W1959445454 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W2016275371 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W2026389843 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W2075734592 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W2085339027 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W2094251696 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W2098161667 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W2111909389 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W2140053455 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W2152367824 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W2171214516 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W2223309625 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W2233603240 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W2240353677 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W2324994757 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W2341787785 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W2502624905 @default.
• W250219036 hasRelatedWork W333730187 @default.
• W250219036 hasVolume "18" @default.
• W250219036 isParatext "false" @default.
• W250219036 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W250219036 magId "250219036" @default.
• W250219036 workType "article" @default.