Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Benutzerstudien"
  • × author_ss:"Drabenstott, K.M."
  1. Drabenstott, K.M.; Simcox, S.; Fenton, E.G.: End-user understanding of subject headings in library catalogs (1999) 0.13 
    0.13374656 = product of:
  0.26749313 = sum of:
    0.26749313 = sum of:
      0.2258623 = weight(_text_:headings in 1333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2258623 = score(doc=1333,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211677 = queryNorm
          0.9093645 = fieldWeight in 1333, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1333)
      0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 1333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04163085 = score(doc=1333,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211677 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1333, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1333)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    n this article, we report on the first large-scale study of end-user understanding of subject headings. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which children and adults understood subdivided subject headings and to suggest improvements for improving understanding of subject headings. The 1991 Library of Congress Subject Subdivisions Conference suggested standardizing the order of subject subdivisions for the purpose of simplifying subject cataloging, which served as the impetus for the study. We demonstrated that adults understood subject headings better than children; however, both adults and children assigned correct meanings to less than half of the subject headings they examined. Neither subject heading context nor subdivision order had an effect on understanding. Based on our findings, we challenge the library community to make major changes to the Library of Congress Subject Headings system that have the potential to increase end-user understanding of subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  2. Franz, L.; Powell, J.; Jude, S.; Drabenstott, K.M.: End user understanding of subdivided headings (1994) 0.06 
    0.056465574 = product of:
  0.11293115 = sum of:
    0.11293115 = product of:
      0.2258623 = sum of:
        0.2258623 = weight(_text_:headings in 1163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2258623 = score(doc=1163,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.9093645 = fieldWeight in 1163, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Describes a study to investigate end user understanding of subdivided subject headings in their current form and in the form proposed by the first recommendation of the Library of Congress Subject Subdivisions Conference. The impetus for this study was a charge by the Subject Analysis Committee of the ALA to respond to the first recommendation of the LC Subject Subdivisions Conference that proposed standardizing the order of subject subdivisions. Questionnaires bearing subdivided subject headings in the 'current' form and in the form proposed were distributed to users and professional cataloguers who were asked for the meaning of individual headings. The end users' responses to cataloguers' responses were compared to determine end users' level of understanding of subdivided subject headings. An analysis of end user interpretations demonstrated that they interpreted the meaning of subject headings in the same manner as cataloguers about 40% of the time for 'current' forms of subject headings and about 32% of the time for 'proposed' forms of subject headings. Concludes with specific recommendations about the first recommendation of the LC Subject Subdivisions Conference and general recommendations about increasing end user understanding of subdivided subject headinbgs
  3. Drabenstott, K.M.; Simcox, S.; Fenton, E.G.: Do patrons understand Library of Congress Subject Headings? (1999) 0.04 
    0.039927192 = product of:
  0.079854384 = sum of:
    0.079854384 = product of:
      0.15970877 = sum of:
        0.15970877 = weight(_text_:headings in 6072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15970877 = score(doc=6072,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.6430178 = fieldWeight in 6072, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6072)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  4. Drabenstott, K.M.: Interpreting the findings of "A study of library users and their understanding of subject headings" (1999) 0.04 
    0.039927192 = product of:
  0.079854384 = sum of:
    0.079854384 = product of:
      0.15970877 = sum of:
        0.15970877 = weight(_text_:headings in 6178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15970877 = score(doc=6178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.6430178 = fieldWeight in 6178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Authors

Themes