Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 118Library Science and Information LiteracyLibrary Science and InformationInformation Science and Libraries

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Best methods for evaluating educational impact: a comparison of the efficacy of commonly used measures of library instruction

Open access
Schilling, Katherine, Applegate, Rachel·2012·Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA
DOI 10.3163/1536-5050.100.4.007PMC PMC3484955
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND: Libraries are increasingly called upon to demonstrate student learning outcomes and the tangible benefits of library educational programs. This study reviewed and compared the efficacy of traditionally used measures for assessing library instruction, examining the benefits and drawbacks of assessment measures and exploring the extent to which knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors actually paralleled demonstrated skill levels. METHODS: An overview of recent literature on the evaluation of information literacy education addressed these questions: (1) What evaluation measures are commonly used for evaluating library instruction? (2) What are the pros and cons of popular evaluation measures? (3) What are the relationships between measures of skills versus measures of attitudes and behavior? Research outcomes were used to identify relationships between measures of attitudes, behaviors, and skills, which are typically gathered via attitudinal surveys, written skills tests, or graded exercises. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Results provide useful information about the efficacy of instructional evaluation methods, including showing significant disparities between attitudes, skills, and information usage behaviors. This information can be used by librarians to implement the most appropriate evaluation methods for measuring important variables that accurately demonstrate students' attitudes, behaviors, or skills.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3163/1536-5050.100.4.007

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

Cited by

See all 118

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Schilling, K., & Applegate, R.
Affiliations
Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
ORCID
Applegate, Rachel
Venue
Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA
Publisher
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
Published
2012-10
Volume
100
Issue
4
Pages
258-269
ISSN
  • 1536-5050 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9439
DOI
10.3163/1536-5050.100.4.007
PMC
PMC3484955
OpenAlex
W1984166682
Cited by
106
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
62.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Medical Library Association
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 › Information Science and Libraries
Keywords
library instruction, information literacy education, teaching evaluation, evaluation metrics, learning outcomes, attitude-behavior relationship, information skills, attitudinal surveys, medical libraries
MeSH terms
Computer-Assisted Instruction, Curriculum, Educational Measurement, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Libraries, Medical, Library Science, Teaching, United States, Librarians, Information Storage and Retrieval, Professional Role, Information Dissemination

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