Cited by 8Library Science and Information LiteracyLibrary Science and Informationscientometrics and bibliometrics research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Stop chasing unicorns: Setting reasonable expectations for the impact of library instruction programs (and other library services) on student success

Gariepy, Laura W., Peacemaker, Bettina, Colon, Valeriana·2017·Performance Measurement and Metrics

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the importance of selecting “well-matched” independent and dependent variables in quantitative research to maximize the possibility of detecting impact of library services on indicators of student success. The paper introduces the concept of sensitivity, which is the extent to which a measure will detect change in the thing being measured. Design/methodology/approach To make the case, the authors use the impact of amount of library instruction received on Grade Point Average (GPA) as an example, explaining a correlational research study at their institution. However, the emphasis of the paper is on the conceptual importance of sensitivity in variable selection in quantitative studies of all types. Findings After finding no statistically significant relationship between the amount of library instruction received and GPA, the authors determined that GPA was not a sensitive enough variable to detect the impact of a few class sessions taught by a librarian throughout students entire undergraduate career. Based on the findings and the literature, the authors conclude that the practice of selecting “insensitive” dependent variables that are unlikely to detect impact of the independent variable is a common practice in the library assessment literature. Originality/value In an era where bigger is better when it comes to demonstrating impact of library services, this paper argues that libraries sometimes diminish their ability to illustr…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/pmm-05-2017-0025

Cites

1 of 1 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.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 1991, Assessing the relationship between library instruction methods and the quality of undergraduate research, Research Strategies, 9, 139
  2. Association of College and Research Libraries (2010), “Value of academic libraries: a comprehensive research review and report”, Association of College and Research Libraries, Chicago, IL, available at: www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/value/val_report.pdf
  3. 1993, Evaluating library instruction: doing the best you can with what you have, RQ, 33, 195
  4. 2004, Does the medium matter? A comparison of a web-based tutorial with face-to-face library instruction on education students’ self-efficacy levels and learning outcomes, Research Strategies, 20, 57
  5. 2007, Course grade as a measure of the effectiveness of one-shot information literacy instruction, Public Services Quarterly, 3, 147
  6. 2002, Utilizing need for cognition and perceived self‐efficacy to predict academic performance, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1687, 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02770.x · DOI
  7. 2007, Garbage in, garbage out: the effect of library instruction on the quality of students’ term papers, Electronic Journal of Academic & Special Librarianship, 8
  8. 2013, Psychosocial factors predicting first-year college student success, Journal of College Student Development, 54, 247, 10.1353/csd.2013.0034 · DOI
  9. 2005, Online searching skills: development of an inventory to assess self-efficacy, Journal of Academic Leadership, 31, 98
  10. 2004, Evaluation: A Systematic Approach
  11. 2006, The lasting impact of a library credit course, Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6, 79, 10.1353/pla.2006.0013 · DOI
  12. 2003, A library instruction case study: measuring success from multiple perspectives, Research Strategies, 19, 16, 10.1016/j.resstr.2003.11.001 · DOI
  13. 2011, Measuring association between library instruction and graduation GPA, College & Research Libraries, 72, 464, 10.5860/crl-151 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 2003, Effectiveness of course-integrated and repeated library instruction on library skills of education students, Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences, 40, 271
  15. 2002, Integrating information literacy into the science curriculum, College & Research Libraries, 63, 111, 10.5860/crl.63.2.111 · DOI
  16. 2002, Doing the best you can with what you have: lessons learned from outcomes assessment, Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28, 36
  17. 2004, Faculty-librarian collaboration to assess the effectiveness of a five-session library instruction model, Community & Junior College Libraries, 12, 15

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 8

Metadata

Authors
Gariepy, L. W., Peacemaker, B., & Colon, V.
Affiliations
Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Venue
Performance Measurement and Metrics
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2017-07-10
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
103-109
ISSN
1467-8047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2755424893
Cited by
8
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
7.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Performance Measurement and Metrics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
library services, library evaluation, sensitivity, feature selection, student success indicators, grade point average, library instruction, impact detection, correlational research

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