considering the in-library use of materials · web viewconsidering the in-library use of...

Considering the In-Library Use of Materials at the Cresson Public Library:

A Case Study

Rebecca D. Richardson

Clarion University

0

Considering the In-Library Use of Materials at the Cresson Public Library: A Case Study

Library funding is shrinking, and libraries across the country are struggling to show their

worth. Historically there have been various indicators that are universal in showing the

usefulness of a public library – including topics such as circulation, patron count and reference

questions answered. However, these three basic indicators are not able to accurately judge the

amount of use a library receives in a single day, week, or even year.

When looking at library use based on circulation there is a traditional 20 / 80 equation

that has been accepted by the library community. This equation says that in the average library

collection 20% of the collection is actively used while 80% lays dormant.1 While this may be

accurate for circulation, it does not take into account the in-house use of library materials.

Therefore, circulation, by itself, is not a good indicator of a library’s achievements. This

qualitative study seeks to show that circulation figures must be combined with those of in-library

use of materials to see the true success of a public library.

This study is a case study focusing on the Cresson Public Library. The Cresson Public

Library, located in Cambria County, Pennsylvania, is one of thirteen public libraries and four

college / university libraries in the county. In an attempt to show the true success of the library

and make it stand out (positively) for the purposes of state reports and grant funding, the

researcher / librarian set out to measure the in-house use of library materials. The study

1 William Bitten. “A Use Statistic for Collection Management: The 80/20 Rule Revisited,” Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 14 (1990): 183–189.

1

conducted at this small library hoped to show that the circulation figures were only a small part

of the actual use of the library collection.

The Cresson Public Library serves not only the residents of Cresson Borough, but also

those who live in the adjacent communities including Cresson Township, Sankertown Borough,

Gallitzin Borough, Lily Borough, Loretto, Dysert, and Lily-Washington Township. The library

acts as a “home library” to approximately 1,000 patrons; however, patrons of any public library

in Cambria County may use the library resources. Furthermore it competes with three other

public libraries and two college / university libraries that are located within 10 miles of its

location.

Cresson Borough is a small community of 1,631 residents.2 The library has a collection

of approximately 10,000 cataloged titles, and circulated 14,737 items in 2009.3 The library is

open 6 days a week for 35 hours, including 7 hours on Saturday.

The library is open year round for story hour, tutoring sessions, computer classes, the

summer reading program and additional community services. Library services are utilized not

only by the local community but also by students and adults from three colleges / universities,

four public school districts, three private schools, various charter schools, as well as local home

school students.

Literature Review

When measuring the usefulness of a public library, it is important to include all use of

library materials and not just the items which are checked out or circulated. While there have

been books published on measuring the output of libraries4 there have been very few studies of

2 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Finder, http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en.

3 Cresson Public Library, Pennsylvania Public Library Survey, 2009.4 Douglas Zweizig and Nancy J. VanHouse, Output Measures for Public Libraries, 2nd ed. (Chicago:

American library Assn., 1987).

2

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en

in-house use of materials within public libraries, or at the very least, very few published reports

of such studies. The most recent published study on the topic of in-house use of materials within

a public library that was retrievable was published in 1986 and conducted by the Coalition for

Public Library Research (CPLR)5 in 1984. While, at least one study found gave a brief mention

of browsing in public libraries;6 nearly every other published account of in-house use studies

were conducted withing academic libraries.7 Many of the studies were aimmed more toward

collection development than showing the overall use of specific collections or parts of

collections. The fact that the measurement of the in-house use of materials has been studied in

the academic world and not so much in the public library settings makes a current study of this

issue in a public library setting important. With an academic library there is a captive audience;

students utilize the library to research or to study while a public library relies mostly on those

seeking entertainment or self-help reading or amusements for their children. The academic

library mostly seeks collection development needs with their in-house use studies; the public

library can use these same types of studies to show the use and success of their facilities when

seeking funding and grants.

All previous published studies on the topic of in-house use of materials have taken place

at larger libraries and library systems where the collections ranged, “from almost sixty-five

thousand to nearly one million.”8 This particular study will focus on the Cresson Public Library 5 Richard E. Rubin, “Measuring the In-house Use of Materials in Public Libraries,” Public Libraries 25

(1986): 137-38.6 Janet M. Lange, “Public Library Users, Nonusers, and Type of Library Use,” Public

Library Quarterly 8, no. 1 (1987). 49-68.7 Anthony Hindle and Michael K. Buckland, “In-library Book Usage in Relation to Circulation.” Collection

Management 2, no. 4 (1979): 265-277. Accessed February 2, 2010. doi:10.1300/J105v02n04_01. Cindy Lafferty, “Serials Usage Statistics in a Small Academic Library.” Serials Librarian 49, no. 4 (2006): 45-52. Accessed February 6, 2010, http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.34. Cole Puvogel, “Stack Attack!: In-house Book Usage in a Small College Environment,” College & Undergraduate Libraries 5, no. 2 (1998): 11-22. Accessed February 6, 2010. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a903666924.

8 Rubin, “Measuring the In-House Use of Library Materials,” 137.

3

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a903666924

http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.34

http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.34

with a complete collection (circulating and non-circulating) of approximately 11,000 titles. The

measurement of the statistics at this library are relevant nationwide as it is comparable in size to

1,729 other libraries in the country.9

There are four basic ways to evaluate the in-house use of library materials and the study

conducted in 1984 by the CPLR was designed specifically to find the most accurate method.

These methods – table counting, adult questionnaires, interviewing patrons, and mere

observation have been used avidly in an attempt to evaluate the usefulness of academic

libraries.10

In 1984, interviewing patrons was used to gather data for a study conducted in a

Southwestern state. The study sought information on the usage behavior of patrons visited by

libaraians in one county. This research showed that 57% of interviewees used library materials

and services within the library and at least 25% of those interviewees were most interested in

using materials in the library that were non-circulating.11

Most public libraries do not keep track of nor do they report items used within the library

that are non-circulating. In looking at the public library surveys / reports completed by individual

libraries for each state, 42 states did not require any report on the in-house use of library

materials, 4 states (California, Indiana, Iowa and Kentucky) did require this information and 2

states / districts did not have information available (Washington, D.C. and Hawaii). Surprisingly,

while the 4 states required this information, they did not give instructions on the form on how to

gather the statistics for the in-house use of library materials.12

9 Institue of Museum and Library Services, “Library Statistics” http://harvester.census.gov/imls/compare/PeerVariableSelected.asp.

10 Rubin, “Measuring the In-House Use of Library Materials,” 138.11 Janet M. Lange, “Public Library Users, Nonusers, and Type of Library Use,” 60.12 Library Research Service, “State Public Library Statistics,” http://www.lrs.org/public/other.php.

4

http://www.lrs.org/public/other.php

http://harvester.census.gov/imls/compare/PeerVariableSelected.asp

A collection survey at La Roche College in Pennsylvania showed not only which titles

were circulating but also titles that were used and reshelved by patrons and also those which

were used and left for the staff to shelf.13 Puvogel relied on observation and table count to

conduct this particular study which lasted three months. Each morning library staff checked the

shelves chosen for this study to count books which were not lined up properly on the shelves

(indicating use and reshelving by a patron). If they were missing from the shelf and not checked

out from the library, they were considered tabled and used within the library. Puvogel remarked

that she had chosen these particular methods of measurement because it had previously worked

for her when evaluating the serials collection at this college.

The University of Saint Francis in Indiana was also interested in the in-library use of their

serials collection.14 The university decided to use a table count method of recording the statistics.

Lafferty noted there were problems with the method as it was not always known how many

individuals may have reshelved their own magazines or how many times a title may have been

picked up and browsed while sitting on the table waiting to be reshelved. Lafferty indicated that

she was also looking for a bit more information than most public library would want / need to

know including why that particular title was picked up, how it was used and why it was used.

She also noted that one of the problems with a particular project was that it relied on work study

students to conduct the counts and that they are not always as motivated as a regular researcher

or librarian to conduct accurate counts.

Hindle and Buckland15 took a different approach to their research and looked at

independent studies at the University of Chicago Library, the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Polytechnic

Library, and the University of Lancaster, and compared their results to gain a completely new

13 Puvogel, “Stack Attack.”14 Lafferty, “Serials Usage Statistics in a Small Academic Library.”15 Hindle and Buckland, “In-library Book Usage in Relation to Circulation.”

5

understanding of the relationship between in-library use and circulation. The University of

Chicago Library used questionnaires while the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Polytechnic Library used

detailed observation of disturbed slips of paper (the researchers placed slips of paper in books

and kept track of when the papers were missing to indicate the book had been used). Both

methods were considered to be to be “time-consuming in the labor and the elapsed time

involved”16 The University of Lancaster used more of a table counting method and applied it to a

select group of books whose overall circulation was also monitored. To Hindle and Buckland,

this proved to be a more efficient use of time and method; which is one of the reasons this

research study will be conducted using a table method.

There is currently a particular need for the in-library use of materials due to budget cuts

and library closings across the country. If a library has particularly low circulation, it can show

its worthiness by how often the items in its library are actually being used. In October 2009,

libraries across the state of Pennsylvania recorded statistics for the purpose of giving legislators

something tangible to use when making decisions about their funding.17 While this “Snapshot,”

as it was called, came too late to save the state’s public libraries from having their state funding

cut, it provided a number of performance indicators with staggering figures. The one indicator

that is not present is a table count or any other type of measurement of in-house use of the

library. The indicators used include the number of items checked out, how many people utilized

the library, and how many reference questions were asked / answered, but the in-house use of the

library materials was not measured.

Most public libraries do not keep track of nor do they report items used within the library

that are non-circulating. In looking at the public library surveys / reports completed by individual

16Hindle and Buckland, “In-library Book Usage in Relation to Circulation,” 267.17 Snapshot PA. “Results.” Last modified October 28, 2009, http://www.snapshotpa.org/.

6

http://www.snapshotpa.org/

libraries for each state, 42 states did not require any report on the in-house use of library

materials, 4 states (California, Indiana, Iowa and Kentucky) did require this information and 2

states / districts did not have information available (Washington, D.C. and Hawaii). Surprisingly,

while the 4 states required this information, they did not give instructions on the form on how to

gather the statistics for the in-house use of library materials.18

The use of materials in not a matter of dispute among the library community; however,

the use of these figures as library performance indicators is not common practice. One of the

reasons for not using the figures depicting the in-house use of materials could be the fact that

there are disadvantages to each form of evidence gathering. Rubin noted that each form of

measurement has its advantages and disadvantages; therefore, by combining one or more of these

devices the advantages make up for the faults. 19

Methodology

In putting together a methodology for this study, the researcher relied heavily on the

instrument provided in Output Measures for Public Libraries. The book gives step-by-step

details on how to measure in-house use of materials using the table count method. This book acts

as a manual to instruct those doing the research to conduct a table count for one week, then to

follow a prescribed mathematical formula to estimate the count for an entire year and how to find

what percentage of the collection is used within the library per capita. 20

The researcher / librarian in this case followed the advice of Rubin who suggested that a

combination of research methods would be more accurate than one or another. In his article,

Rubin looked at methods of investigation examining in-library use of materials including table

18 Library Research Service, “State Public Library Statistics,” http://www.lrs.org/public/other.php. 19 Rubin, “Measuring the In-House Use of Library Materials,” 138.20 Zweizig and Van House, Output Measures, 46.

7


count, obscure observation, questionnaire and interview.21 The researcher / librarian believe the

size of the Cresson Public Library and the limited staff lent itself to combining both the table

count and obscure observation methods to gather data.

In this particular case, the researcher / librarian believes that gathering data for just one

set week would not be enough time to get the data needed to accurately measure the true in-

library use of materials. This case study was conducted using one random day of the month for

each day the library was open, with data being collected for three months (April through June)

for a total of 18 days throughout the sampling period with three collection days on Mondays,

Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. The researcher / librarian put the

dates for each individual weekday of the month into a bag and drew the dates that would be used

for gathering data. (See Table 1 in the Appendix).

On gathering days, the researcher (who was also the librarian) posted signs around the

small, one-room library requesting that patrons allow the librarians to shelve library materials.

This request was also mentioned this to patrons as they entered the building. In addition to

counting the library materials left on the table to be shelved, the researcher / librarian observed

patrons as they perused the shelves to count items taken off the shelf, glanced through and

replaced. The researcher / librarian would record tick marks under the observation hour and

every hour the librarian would shelve items left on the table and add that figure to the tick marks

to find the number of library materials used within the library that hour.22

Analysis of Data

Following the collection period, the researcher averaged each individual day of the week

for all three months before adding the figure into the formula provided by Zweizig and Van

21 Rubin, “Measuring the In-House Use of Library Materials,” 138.22 See Appendix I for the complete data collection tables.

8

House. The formula calls for adding the figures for the week together and multiplying it by 52

(for the number of weeks in a year). The total will give the estimated number of items used

within the library annually. (Total Items Used In-House in One Week x 52 = Estimated In-House

Use Annually). Zweizig and Van House also instructed to divide the annual figure by the official

service area to find the number of items used within the library per capita.23

Since the researcher / librarian collected data in three different months, they first

averaged the in-house use of library materials for each day of the week before adding it to the

formula. (See Table 2 in the Appendix). The formula for the Cresson Public Library would be:

Monday + Tuesday + Wednesday + Thursday + Friday + Saturday x 52 = Estimated In-House

Use Annually. (See Equation 1 in the Appendix). By using this form of data collection and

equation, the Cresson Public Library will have had 19,117.28 items used within the library

without being checked out in 2010. This could also be read as 11.2 items per capita are being

used completely within the library. (See Equation 2 in the Appendix). When looking at the

circulation figures for 2009 which equaled 14,737 items,24 this figure would more than double

the visible use of the library collection.

23 Zweizig and Van House, Output Measures,46. 24Cresson Public Library, Pennsylvania Public Library Survey, 2009.

9

Figure 1. This bar graph shows, visually, the amount of estimated in-library usage of materials for 2010 and the actual library circulation for 2009. It also shows what the estimated figures for 2010 if the materials circulated from the library and the materials used in-house were combined.

Observations

The base instrument used for this qualitative study was valid; one that had been tested in

the past and proven to be acceptable. However, by altering the initial instrument, the validity of

the instrument actually used is yet to be proven. In conducting this study the researcher /

librarian changed the pattern for gathering the data from the original instrument – the original

instrument called for data to be collected for one week and input those figures into a formula to

find the percentage of in-house use of materials for the entire year and the researcher collected

data for three months. The researcher / librarian also had originally intended to average the

figures in each of the collection categories of books, magazines, newspapers and other items. In

the end the researcher realized that the combined total of all categories were what was needed in

this case. However, the data collected could be used in developing the library collection (to see

where the collection is being used or left relatively untouched).

10

This particular study worked well in the small, one-room library scenario. However, there

were some issues that arose in the process of gathering data. At the time of data collection there

was only one librarian (the researcher) working, and while the library is an open space, one

person could get busy and not be able to observe at all times. In addition there were a number of

items that patrons shelved themselves and others who would use an item that was waiting to be

shelved. In an attempt remind patrons to allow the library employees to reshelf the materials, the

researcher added more posters in several locations around the room reminding patrons to set

aside items they did not wish to check-out.

Conclusion

The researcher / librarian believes that the results this qualitative research study show

data on the in-library use of materials should be gathered. In the case of the Cresson Public

Library this would show a double in library material use (when combining the figures for items

circulated outside the library and those used completely inside the library) and therefore give a

better glimpse of the success of the facility. It would also show that there are more items being

used completely within the Cresson Public Library than are being circulated outside the building.

While this is true in this instance, it may not be accurate in all libraries. It is the

recommendation of the researcher / librarian that more research should be conducted to show

whether the study could be replicated in other small libraries. Once it has been proven that the

initial experiment can be replicated in a similar setting to the initial case study, it should be

repeated in a library of a medium size and work its way up to being used in a large library. By

taking the case study and replicating it at various sized libraries, it could show that while it is a

valid tool for measuring the in-house use of library materials in a library of one size it may not

be useful in a library of a different size. (This experiment could work for small or medium

11

libraries, but be completely insufficient for large libraries). However, the case study and

instrument could also be used for testing the use of specific collections / collection types within

large libraries.

By showing the in-house use of materials, a library has the opportunity to show the true

worth of their facility to the community, community leaders and government officials. In times,

such as this, when library funding is being cut and many libraries are cutting hours, collection

expenditures and, in some cases, shutting their doors it is important to give a full rendering of

library use. The Cresson Public Library intends to use the information gathered in this study,

which shows the use of nearly 20,000 more items than circulation figures alone show) in its

letter to local officials in the annual fundraising campaign.

12

Appendix

Table 1: The Data Collection Forms by Date and Hour

Library: Cresson Public Library Date: Monday, April 12, 2010

Types of Material Hour Total 2 p.m. 3 p.m. 4 p.m. 5 p.m. 6 p.m. 7 p.m. Books 5 112 4 18 3 142Magazines 1 1 4 6 12Other 4 3 4 11Newspapers 2 2 Total: 167

Library: Cresson Public Library Date: Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Types of Material Hour Total 2 p.m. 3 p.m. 4 p.m. 5 p.m. 6 p.m. 7 p.m. Books 10 8 7 23 0 25 73Magazines 0 0 0 0 0 0Other 10 3 0 0 4 17Newspapers 0 2 0 3 1 6 96

Library: Cresson Public Library Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Types of Material Hour Total 2 p.m. 3 p.m. 4 p.m. 5 p.m. 6 p.m. 7 p.m. Books 5 2 15 1 39 0 62Magazines 1 0 3 0 0 3 7Other 4 0 0 7 0 0 11Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80

13

Library: Cresson Public Library Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010

Types of Material Hour Total 2 p.m. 3 p.m. 4 p.m. 5 p.m. 6 p.m. 7 p.m. Books 8 34 19 1 0 0 62Magazines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Other 14 0 3 0 0 0 17Newspapers 1 2 0 1 0 2 6

85

Library: Cresson Public Library Date: Fri. , April 9, 2010

Types of Material Hour Total 2 p.m. 3 p.m. 4 p.m. 5 p.m. Books 0 2 10 4 16Magazines 1 5 11 17Other 0 0 0 0 0Newspapers 0 2 0 0 2 35

Library: Cresson Public Library Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010

Types of Material Hour Total

9:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM Noon

1:00 PM 2 p.m. 3 p.m.

Books 0 1 0 1 10 4 3 19Magazines 0 0 1 6 0 10 0 17Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Newspapers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

36

Library: Cresson Public Library

14

Date: Monday, May 10, 2010

Types of Material Hour Total 2 p.m. 3 p.m. 4 p.m. 5 p.m. 6 p.m. 7 p.m. Books 0 4 46 13 1 7 71Magazines 0 0 0 0 1 0 1Other 0 0 0 0 1 4 5Newspapers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77

Library: Cresson Public Library Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2010


Library: Cresson Public Library Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2010


Library: Cresson Public Library Date: Thursday, May 27, 2010

15


Library: Cresson Public Library Date: Fri., May 21, 2010

Types of Material Hour Total 2 p.m. 3 p.m. 4 p.m. 5 p.m. Books 1 3 0 1 5Magazines 0 1 0 0 1Other 0 2 0 2 4Newspapers 0 0 0 0 0 10

Library: Cresson Public Library Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010

Types of Material Hour Total 9 a.m. 10 a.m. 11 a.m. Noon 1 p.m. 2 p.m. 3 p.m. Books 2 3 6 2 5 2 5 25Magazines 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3Other 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3Newspapers 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 33

Library: Cresson Public Library Date: Monday, June 7, 2010

16


Library: Cresson Public Library Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2010


Library: Cresson Public Library Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2010


Library: Cresson Public Library Date: Thursday, June 24, 2010

17


Library: Cresson Public Library Date: Friday, June 11, 2010

Types of Material Hour Total 2 p.m. 3 p.m. 4 p.m. 5 p.m. Books 12 8 9 0 29Magazines 0 0 0 0 0Other 0 0 0 0 0Newspapers 3 6 0 0 9 38

Library: Cresson Public Library Date: Saturday, June 19, 2010

Types of Material Hour

9:00 AM 10 a.m. 11 a.m. 12 p.m. 1 p.m. 2 p.m. 3 p.m.

Books 1 0 0 0 1 6 2 10Magazines 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3Other 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3Newspapers 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 18

Table 2: Monday Figures

Date Books Magazine Newspaper Other Total

18

s sMonday, 4/12/10 142 12 2 11 167Monday, 5/10/10 71 1 0 5 77Monday, 6/7/10 48 8 1 11 68

312Average of three days 104

Tuesday Figures

Date BooksMagazines

Newspapers Other Total

Tuesday, 4/27/10 73 0 17 6 96Tuesday, 5/25/10 38 0 7 10 55Tuesday, 6/8/10 39 7 0 5 51

202Average of three days 67.33

Wednesday Figures

Date BooksMagazines


Wednesday, 4/7/10 62 7 0 11 80Wednesday, 5/12/10 37 1 0 11 49Wednesday, 6/16/10 51 3 1 15 70


Thursday Figures

Date BooksMagazines


Thursday, 4/15/10 62 0 6 17 85Thursday, 5/27/10 21 3 10 7 41Thursday, 6/24/10 74 3 7 7 91


Friday Figures

19

Date BooksMagazines


Friday, 4/9/10 16 17 2 0 35Friday, 5/21/10 5 1 0 4 10Friday, 6/11/10 29 0 9 0 38


Saturday Figures

Date BooksMagazines


Saturday, 4/3/10 19 17 3 0 39Saturday, 5/15/10 25 3 2 3 33Saturday, 6/19/2010 10 3 2 3 18

90Average of three days 30

Equation I: Total In-Library Materials Used Annually

Total Number of Items Used for One Week x 52 Weeks = Total In-Library Materials Used

367.65 x 52 = 19,117.80 Items Used Annually

Equation II: Total In-Library Materials Used Annually Per Capita

Items Used Annually_________________________ = Total In-Library Materials Used Per Capita Population of Service Area

19,117.80________________________ = 11.2 Items Per Capita

1,631

20

Bibliography

Britten, William. “A Use Statistic for Collection Management: The 80/20 Rule Revisited.”

Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 14 (1990): 183–189. Science Direct database.

Cresson Public Library, Pennsylvania Public Library Survey, 2009.

Hindle, Anthony and Michael K. Buckland. “In-library Book Usage in Relation to Circulation.”

Collection Management 2, no. 4 (1979): 265-277. doi:10.1300/J105v02n04_01.

Lafferty, Cindy. “Serials Usage Statistics in a Small Academic Library.” Serials Librarian 49,

no. 4 (2006): 45-52. http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?

_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.34.

Lange, Janet M. “Public Library Users, Nonusers, and Type of Library Use.” Public Library

Quarterly 8, no. 1 (1987). 49-68.

Library Research Service, “State Public Library Statistics,” http://www.lrs.org/public/other.php.

Institue of Museum and Library Services. “Library Statistics.” Last modified 2009.

http://harvester.census.gov/imls/compare/PeerVariableSelected.asp.

Puvogel, Cole. “Stack Attack!: In-house Book Usage in a Small College Environment.” College

& Undergraduate Libraries 5, no. 2 (1998): 11-22.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a903666924.

Rubin, Richard E. “Measuring the In-house Use of Materials in Public Libraries,” Public

Libraries 25 (1986): 137-38.

Snapshot PA. “Results.” Last modified October 28, 2009. http://www.snapshotpa.org/.

21

http://www.snapshotpa.org/

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a903666924.

http://harvester.census.gov/imls/compare/PeerVariableSelected.asp.


http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.34.%20

http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.34.%20

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Finder, http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?

_lang=en.

Zweizig, Douglas and Nancy J. VanHouse. Output Measures for Public Libraries, 2nd ed.

Chicago: American library Assn., 1987.

22



considering the in-library use of materials · web viewconsidering the in-library use of...

Documents