1. David E. Hubbard Science & Engineering Librarian Texas A&M University Libraries Choice Reviews: A Local Comparison of Chemistry Monograph Circulation

2. Choice Magazine  Started 1964  7,000 reviews/year  Print and Online  “…most widely used selection aid in American college libraries…” (Evans, 2000, p. 97) Reprinted with permission from Choice (http://www.cro3.org/), copyright by the American Library Association.

3. Books Reviews: Criticisms and Limitations  Book Reviews  Mostly favorable  Quality  Timeliness  Small number  Usefulness  Choice Selection Policy

4. Project + Research Question  Use Choice recommended titles as checklist for our chemistry monograph collection.  Do the recommended Choice chemistry monograph titles circulate any more than the chemistry monograph collection as a whole.

5. A Little Background  84% of monographs are acquired via our approval plan (including DDA)  Flexible Fund Structure (vanDuinkerken et al., 2008)  My Use of Choice Reviews  Disclaimer: I was Choice Reviewer (2006-2009)

6. Literature Review Choice Titles and Circulation Some studies found a relationship between Choice titles and circulation, while others did not.

7. Methodology (Approach) Choice Titles vs. Collection  Hypothesis Testing  H o : Mean circulation of the two populations is the same (u 1 =u 2 )  H 1 : Mean circulation of the two populations is different (u 1 ≠u 2 )  Percentage of Titles Circulated

8. Methodology (Data)  General Chemistry Collection Titles (“Non-Choice” Titles)  Choice Chemistry Titles  Circulation Data

9. Results (Titles)  Choice Recommended Chemistry Titles*  Chemistry Collection  2,525 titles * 436 total, 404 recommended, and 397 cataloged at Texas A&M as QDs.

10. Results (Circulation) t-test resulted in a p-value of 0.0063, so the null hypothesis is rejected. Circulation: Choice Titles versus General Chemistry Collection The mean circulation for Choice titles and the Collection is different!

11. Results (Titles) Percentage of Titles Circulated

12. Discussion and Conclusion  Mean circulation was skewed, so comparison of the median may be more representative.  On a percentage basis Choice chemistry titles circulated more than the general chemistry collection.  The print chemistry monographs available both in print and online circulated as much as print only.

13. References Evans, G. E. S. M. Z. (2000). Developing library and information center collections (4th ed.). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Jobe, M. M., & Levine-Clark, M. (2008). Use and Non-Use of Choice-Reviewed Titles in Undergraduate Libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(4), 295-304. Levine-Clark, M., & Jobe, M. M. (2007). Do Reviews Matter? An Analysis of Usage and Holdings of Choice-Reviewed Titles Within a Consortium. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(6), 639-646. Schmitt, J. P., Saunders, S., & Schmitt, J. P. (1983). Assessment of Choice as a tool for selection. College & Research Libraries, 44, 375-380. Stebelman, S. (1996). Using Choice as a collection assessment tool. Collection Building, 15(2), 4-11. vanDuinkerken, W., Smith, J., Harrell, J., Reynolds, L. J., Tucker, S., & Carrigan, E. (2008). Creating a flexible fund structure to meet the needs and goals of the library and its users. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 32(3/4), 142-149. Williams, K. C., & Best, R. (2006). E-Book Usage and the “Choice” Outstanding Academic Book List: Is there a correlation? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(5), 474-478.

14. Questions?