The READ Scale

1. The READ Scale G. Lynn Berard Bella Karr Gerlich Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

2. The READ Scale • Reference • Effort • Assessment • Data A six point (1 - 6) sliding scale that asks librarians to assign a number based on effort / knowledge / skill / teachable moment instead of a hash mark after a reference transaction. Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

3. READ Scale Study Objective Test the validity of the READ Scale as an additional tool for gathering reference statistics to record and recognize the effort / knowledge / skills / value-added service required during a reference transaction. Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

4. READ Scale Study • Recruit 9 - 15 academic libraries • Public and private • Geographically diverse • Various enrollment size Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

5. 14 Institutions, 12 States Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

6. The Institutions Enrollment under 5,000 Eastern Virginia Medical School Edward E. Brickell Medical Sciences Library, Norfolk, VA Lawrence University Seeley G. Mudd Library, Appleton, WI Lewis & Clark College Aubrey R. Watzek Library, Portland, OR Clarke College Clarke College Library, Dubuque, IA Our Lady of the Lake University San Antonio (OLLUSA) Sueltenfuss Library, San Antonio, TX Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

7. The Institutions Enrollment over 5,000 Georgia College & State University GCSU Library & Instructional Technology Center (2 Service Points) Reference & Special Collections, Milledgeville, GA Carnegie Mellon University Hunt Library, Arts,& Spec Coll, Science Library, Mellon Inst, Music Listening, Software Engineering Institute (6 Service Points) Pittsburgh, PA Robert Morris University Patrick Henry Center, Pittsburgh Center (2 Service Points) Moon Township, PA Washburn University Mabee Library, Topeka, KS Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

8. The Institutions Enrollment over 15,000 West Virginia University (3 Libraries) Health Sciences Library, Downtown Campus Library, Evansdale Library,Morgantown, WV University of California, San Diego Science & Engineering Library,La Jolla, CA New York University Business & Documents Center – Bobst Library, New York, NY Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Tech Library, Atlanta, GA University of Nebraska Love Library (Chat Service only), Lincoln, NE Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

9. Participant Data • 14 Institutions • 24 Service Points • 179 Participants • Full / PT / Faculty / Staff • Varying experience levels Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

10. Study Components • IRB / Consent Forms • Timeline (3 week and/or semester long) • Pre-test / local calibration • Blog • Online Survey Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

11. Study Components - IRB • IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval • Done at GCSU and Carnegie Mellon • Done at Institutions if required • Consent forms delivered electronically, signed & returned with data at end of 3 week study period Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

12. Study Components - Timeline • 3 Week and / or Full Semester • Feb. 2 - Feb. 24, 2007 - 14 Institutions (all) • Full Semester - 7 Institutions February dates selected to give institutions time to test as well as minimize chances for spring break, holidays etc. Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

13. Study Components - Pre-test, Local Calibration • Sample Questions created to choose from • Encouraged to include questions typical to their home institution (ie collection specific) • On-Site Coordinator distributed locally and calibrated, creating an ‘example key’ for participants • Asked to record time for each during test phase Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

14. Study Components - Pre-test, Local Calibration Pre-test allowed for study-wide calibration - test questions, responses, time and READ Scale category assignments were the same across institutions for the most part Institutions used their own recording sheets Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

15. Study Components - Blog • Blog set up • Only one question received during study • Online survey responses suggest that the READ Scale was easy to apply, could explain why blog was not utilized Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

16. Study Components - Online Survey • Online Survey sent at the conclusion of the three week study period to all participants • Response rate was high - 102 responses out of 179, or 56% Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

17. Study Components - Online Survey - Results • Question 1: Please rank your degree of difficulty using the READ Scale. Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

18. Study Components - Online Survey - Results • Question 2: Was the READ Scale easy to apply? Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

19. Study Components - Online Survey - Results • Question 3: Please rank the level of perceived "added value" the READ Scale placed on statistics gathering for reference transactions. Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

20. Study Components - Online Survey - Results • Question 4: Did you have difficulty in deciding between ratings? If so check all that apply. Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

21. Study Components - Online Survey - Results • Question 5: How did you feel about evaluating your own efforts? Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

22. Study Components - Online Survey - Results • Question 6: Would you recommend the READ Scale to another reference librarian? Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

23. Study Components - Online Survey - Results • Question 7: Would you like to see this scale adopted for use in your library? Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

24. Study Components - Online Survey - Results - Likes Question 8 asked participants what they liked about the Scale. The likes listed by the participants where coded into the six most common reoccurrences: Effort / Value; (17) Approach to Evaluation; (13) Types / Levels; (9) Time; (5) Staffing Levels; (6) Reporting to Administration (5) Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

25. Likes “It gave me a quick visible check of my recent efforts. This made my desk work more rewarding, since I sometimes feel like I do so many 1s and 2s- but I could see that I was actually doing a higher level of reference than I realized. It added value to the statistics - literally.” Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

26. Study Components - Online Survey - Results - Dislikes Question 9: Participants were also asked to list their dislikes. These were coded into the six most common reoccurrences: Difficult to Apply / Subjectivity; (19) Types / Levels; (16) Approach to Evaluating; (9) Knowledge of Staff; (6) Effort / Value; (4) Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

27. Dislikes “At times it was difficult to rate effort.” Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

28. Study Components - Online Survey - Results • Question 10: Do you have any modifications you would like to suggest to improve the READ Scale? Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

29. Study Components - Online Survey - Results - Modifications Modifications were put into the following categories: Delivery Method/READ Scale Appearance; (9) Time Element; (5) Skill Level Element; (4) Clarity of Categories; (4) Discussion Component; (2) Comments / Observations. (2) Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

30. Modifications “Perhaps, clarify who is answering the questions” (skill level). “Collect length of time as another way to gauge level of difficulty” Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

31. Study Components - Online Survey - Results • Question 11: Were there any changes in your personal approach to reference service while you were using the READ Scale? Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

32. Personal approaches “More likely to think about the level of service being provided.” “I gave more conscience thought to the processes or steps involved in order to rate each interaction.” Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

33. Survey Results - Overall • No difficulty using the Scale • Easy to apply • Ranked perception of added value to reference statistics as ‘high’ • Staff comfortable with rating their own efforts • 68% would recommend as is, 20% with modifications • 50% would adopt as is, additional 31% with modifications • Low percentage of changes in approach (10%) reinforces ease of use / local adaptability Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

34. READ Scale - What works • Local approach to using the READ Scale • Pre-testing / common questions • Easy to use • Adds value to data gathering • Adds value to work / satisfaction • Records previously unrecorded effort / knowledge / skills (service point and off-desk) Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

35. READ Scale - preliminary data • Comparisons per service point (READ Scale) • Comparisons off-desk (READ Scale) • Approach type, service points • Approach type, off-desk Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

36. Three Week Data, Service Points Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

37. Three Week Data, Off-Desk Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

38. Full Semester Participants Data, Service Points Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

39. Full Semester Participants Data, Off-Desk Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

40. Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

41. Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

42. READ ScalePractical Applications • Training / Continuing Education • Renewed Personal & Professional Interest • Outreach • Reporting / Statistics Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

43. READ ScalePractical Applications Training / Continuing Education “I felt it was very useful because it challenged me to come up higher in those areas where I need improvement in certain concentrations like ____ which is not my specialty. I need to learn so much more.” Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

44. READ ScalePractical Applications Training / Continuing Education • New staff. Develop a training regimen with outcomes, with a similar series of questions to be given at a later date to insure that the staff is developing the necessary skills / knowledge. • Continuous learning. Writing down any questions that elicit an assignment of a category of 4 or higher at the service point, then sharing with colleagues, there by sharing strategies and learning from others. Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

45. READ ScalePractical Applications Renewed Personal & Professional Interest “Using the READ Scale added to my sense of accomplishment!” Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

46. READ ScalePractical Applications Renewed Personal & Professional Interest • Self Assessment / Reference as Activity Reference staff can rate their effort / knowledge / skills as appropriate. Gives recognition to primary function and can be compared to other libraries / librarians using the Scale. Acknowledges the two activities most important to reference staff in terms of job satisfaction (Gerlich): helping users and detective work. Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

47. READ ScalePractical Applications Outreach “It gives ME a tangible scale on which to rate my efforts, ultimately spurring me to strive for better service.” Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

48. READ ScalePractical Applications Outreach • Recording Liaison Activity Off-desk statistics are often not recorded, or if they are, given the same hash mark as a directional question. Using the READ Scale in these cases would show case the subject specialization knowledge / needs of the campus. In cases where off-desk statistics are low or READ Scale assignments are in the low end range, outreach activity could be re-examined, surveys taken, etc in that particular area and services redesigned as needed. Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

49. READ ScalePractical Applications Research / Statistics “An assessment tool that does a better job of reflecting how reference librarians spend their time. It gives more value than tick marks on a page. It's a tool we can use with administrators to show what we really do.” Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich

50. READ ScalePractical Applications Research / Statistics • Staffing Strategies. Who staffs desk, when. • Develop Narrative Statistics. Records hidden work. • Time. Estimate or actual real time statistics for effort working with patrons. • Comparisons with like institutions who use the Scale. Lynn Berard / Bella Gerlich