The College Library and the Drop-Out
Open accessAbstract
Made available in DSpace on 2013-01-29T18:54:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4922 bytes, checksum: 910b249b4beec47e7ab768910c8f966f (MD5) crl_29_04_310_opt.pdf: 704671 bytes, checksum: ec9f6ea45856fc67306f73606f22660c (MD5) Previous issue date: 1968-07
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Kramer and Kramer found that 43 percent of library nonusers dropped out after their first year while only 26 percent of library users dropped out.
“Kramer and Kramer found that 43 percent of library nonusers dropped out after their first year while only 26 percent of library users dropped out.”
From The Value of Academic Libraries: Library Services as a Predictor of Student Retention (2016) · cites this paper as [12]
Kramer and Kramer's findings demonstrated that library users had a higher rate of retention (73.7%) than the overall institutional rate of 63 percent.
“These findings demonstrated that library users had a higher rate of retention (73.7%) than the overall institutional rate of 63 percent.”
From The Value of Academic Libraries: Library Services as a Predictor of Student Retention (2016) · cites this paper as [12]
Better students tend to use the library resources available.
“If this is the case, many library learning analytics studies are simply confirming findings that we already know, that is, better students tend to use the library resources available (Kramer and Kramer, 1968; Parker 2003; Tolar Burton and Chadwick 2000; Wallace, Shorten and Crookes 2000; Whitmire 2002).”
From Unethical Numbers? A Meta-analysis of Library Learning Analytics Studies (2019) · cites this paper as Kramer and Kramer, 1968
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Soria, K. M., Fransen, J., & Nackerud, S. (2013) · portal: Libraries and the Academy · doi:10.1353/pla.2013.0010 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
The Value of Academic Libraries: Library Services as a Predictor of Student Retention
Murray, A., Ireland, A., & Hackathorn, J. (2016) · College & Research Libraries · doi:10.5860/crl.77.5.631 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Unethical Numbers? A Meta-analysis of Library Learning Analytics Studies
Robertshaw, M. B., & Asher, A. (2019) · Library Trends · doi:10.1353/lib.2019.0031 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
“Three grade studies (Selegan et al. 1983; Kramer and Kramer 1968; His-cock 1986) and one retention study (Kramer and Kramer 1968) met the inclusion criteria, but were excluded.”
The Impact of Library Instruction on Undergraduate Student Success: A Four-Year Study
Rowe, J., Leuzinger, J., Hargis, C., & Harker, K. (2021) · College & Research Libraries · doi:10.5860/crl.82.1.7 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kramer, L. A., & Kramer, M. B.
- Venue
- College & Research Libraries
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1968-06-30
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 310-312
- ISSN
- 0010-0870 (ISSN-L)
- 2150-6701
- OpenAlex
- W2019404505
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- College & Research Libraries (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Administration
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
- Keywords
- college libraries, library services for students, student retention, academic library use
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
