Search (1 results, page 1 of 1)

0.004061831 = product of:
  0.008123662 = sum of:
    0.008123662 = product of:
      0.016247325 = sum of:
        0.016247325 = weight(_text_:p in 2214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016247325 = score(doc=2214,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.099312946 = fieldWeight in 2214, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2214)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

The authors also do a good job of explaining the process of complex model building, making the text a useful resource for dissertation writers. The next two chapters focus an the results of the study. Chapter 5 presents the study findings and introduces four different models of the reference process, derived from the study results. Chapter 6 adds analysis to the discussion of the results. Unfortunately, the "Implications for Practice," "Implications for Research," and "Implications for Education" sections are disappointingly brief-only a few paragraphs each-limiting the utility of the volume to practitioners. Finally, Chapter 7 considers the applicability of systems analysis in modeling the reference process. It also includes a series of data flow diagrams that depict the reference process as an alternative to flowchart depiction. Throughout the book, the authors claim that their study is more complete than any to come before it since previous studies tended to focus an ready reference questions, rather than full-blown reference queries and directional queries, and since previous studies generally excluded telephone reference. They also challenge the long-standing "55% Rule," asserting that "Library users indicate high satisfaction even when they do not find what they want or are not given accurate information" (Saxton & Richardson, 2002, p. 95). Overall, Saxton and Richardson found the major variables that had a statistically significant effect an the outcome measures to be: (1) the extent to which the librarian followed the RUSA Behavioral Guidelines; (2) the difficulty of the query; (3) the user's education level, (4) the user's familiarity with the library; and (5) the level of reference service provided. None of the other variables that were considered, most notably the librarian's experience, the librarian's education level, and the size of the collection, had a statistically significant effect an the outcome measures.