CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 344Library Science and Information LiteracyHealth Sciences Research and EducationLibrary Science and Information

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice

Booth, Andrew·2006·Library Hi Tech
DOI 10.1108/07378830610692127
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose The paper seeks to provide an overview and update of thinking in relation to the theory and practice of formulation of answerable research questions within evidence based information practice. Design/methodology/approach The paper reviews the healthcare and information literature on question formulation, augmented by structured and purposive internet searches. Findings Although a few key authors have published extensively on all aspects of the evidence‐based information practice process, including question formulation, there is little in the way of empirical research. Research limitations/implications In the absence of an empirical research base from within the specific domain of information practice, this conceptual paper extrapolates findings from healthcare research to general librarianship. Practical implications This article models the process of question formulation using a proposed conceptual framework (SPICE) and encourages practitioners to identify their own practice‐based questions. Originality/value This is the first article specifically to address question formulation for a general (i.e. non‐health) library audience.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/07378830610692127

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Bexon, N. (2005), “Evidence‐based librarianship can be adopted by practising librarians, but there needs to be a greater emphasis on identifying relevant questions and applying the appraised evidence to real life”, paper presented at the Implementation of Quality Systems and Certification of Biomedical Libraries, EAHIL Workshop, Palermo, 23‐25 June.
  2. Eldredge, J.D. (2001), “The most relevant and answerable research questions facing the practice of health sciences librarianship”, Hypothesis, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 3‐5, available at: http://168.17.205.219/mla/research/Hypo2001v.15%20no.1.pdf.
  3. Gerould, J.T. (1906), “A plan for the compilation of comparative university and college library statistics”, Library Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 761‐3.
  4. Horton, R. (2002), “Teacher librarians: what should we be? Professional development from the inside”, Access, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 31‐3, available at: http://alia.org.au/∼rhorton/education/role.html.
  5. Richardson, W.S. and Wilson, M.C. (1997), “On questions, background and foreground”, Evidence Based Healthcare Newsletter, Vol. 17, pp. 8‐9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 344

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Booth, A.
Affiliations
University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Booth, Andrew
ORCID
Booth, Andrew
Venue
Library Hi Tech
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2006-07-01
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
355-368
ISSN
0737-8831 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/07378830610692127
OpenAlex
W2112145696
Cited by
344
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
18.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
Library Hi Tech (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information
Keywords
question generation, research question formulation, information practices, conceptual framework

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review