PACINA OnlineA Mini-Tutorial on Reading and

Interpreting a Published Information Needs Analysis facilitated by Andrew

Booth, ScHARR, University of Sheffield

Today we will be looking at:

• Higa-Moore ML, Bunnett B, Mayo HG, Olney CA (2002). Use of focus groups in a library's strategic planning process.J Med Libr Assoc. Jan;90(1):86-92.

• This article is available free from: http://www.pubmedcentral.gov

• Download a copy as a pdf or html file. You may find it helpful to work from a print version.

We shall be using a copy of the CriSTAL Checklist on

Appraising an Information Needs Analysis

You can access a copy at:http://www.shef.ac.uk/~scharr/eblib/needs.htm

[OR needs.doc] OR you can follow along with the questions on the slides

1. Does the study address a clearly focused (no pun intended!) issue?

Well? What do you think? Answer YES, CAN’T TELL or NO before you go to the next slide.

HINT: Can you define the SETTING and the POPULATION and what the author is trying to EVALUATE or measure?

Our Answer is

Yes-ishPOPULATION: faculty,

student, and staff groups of clinical nurses, nurse researchers, hospital administration support staff, computing services staff, clinical nutritionists, and others.

SETTING: more details needed

EVALUATION: Future needs and wants

The authors held focus groups to “gather information about the future needs and wants of our patrons”. However they acknowledge that unlike most focus group projects which address targeted short term issues, they wanted to “gather broad patron input about all aspects of library operations, resources, and services for long-term planning”.

2. Does the study position itself in the context of other studies?

• What do you think? Have the authors done their literature search? Answer YES, CAN’T TELL or NO before you go to the next slide.

HINT: Does the study refer to other studies looking at the same user group? OR Does it use a methodology used in previous studies?

Our answer is:

Yes• The authors have

reviewed the literature on using focus groups prior to undertaking the study and can therefore draw on the methods. These were with different user groups – e.g. community colleges and businesses. They acknowledge that they have a different purpose from other authors.

3. Is there a direct comparison that provides an additional frame

of reference?• What do you think? Answer YES, CAN’T

TELL or NO before you go to the next slide.

• HINT: This may be contrast or similarity to other studies (External). OR with other user groups within study or with the same group at a different location/time (Internal).

Our answer is:

No• Results of this study

must be taken on face value as they are not supported by other studies’ findings.

4. Were those involved in collecting data also delivering the service?

• Were the authors involved in collecting data concerning use of their service? What do you think? Answer YES, CAN’T TELL, or NO before moving to the next slide.

• HINT: It may not always be possible to recruit an external facilitator for a library evaluation project .

Our answer is:

NOThe authors hired a professional

evaluation specialist to moderate the focus groups. The external specialist brought “knowledge and experience of soliciting, compiling, and evaluating patron data, as well as credibility and objectivity”. Their consultant worked at a teaching support unit at another University of Texas health sciences center, and was familiar with large academic library environments.

Were the methods used in acquiring data appropriate and clearly

described?• What is your verdict? Before moving to the

next slide answer YES, CAN’T TELL or NO.

• HINT: What do you think of the questions in Appendix A? Are they appropriate to the issues being investigated?

Our answer is:

YesThe focus groups were

conducted according to sound practice. Each opened with an icebreaker question, followed with critical questions about long-range wants and needs and closed with a summary question for additional thoughts and ideas. They ensured each group addressed the same topics.

6. Was the planned sample representative of all users (actual and eligible)?

What do you think? Is it likely that the sample is an accurate reflection of the total population?

HINT: Are there any users who might have been omitted or over represented?

Our answer is:

Don’t Know

Although the authors report using a purposive sampling strategy the characteristics of the groups are unclear. The use of a patron database might sound convincing but what did they actually do? – look through it and choose informants, either positive or negative! We thus have no evidence that the samples are representative.

7.What was the response rate and how representative was it?

• They attempted to get ten individuals for each focus group, or a total of ninety participants. They achieved a “fairly high” success rate.

• Seventy-three percent of those agreeing to attend actually participated. [But surely they could tell us how many this was compared with their target?]

8. Are the results complete and is the analysis easily interpretable?

• Can’t Tell. The questionnaire is available as Appendix A so we can identify whether any sections of the results have been omitted.

• However the sheer wealth of data involved in focus group studies means that we cannot tell how representative the selected comments are of the entire data itself.

9.What attempts have been made to ensure reliability of responses?Two approaches were used to identify

important themes: • If patrons mentioned a particular theme

or issue in four or more different focus groups, it was considered a major finding.

• The moderator also reported any findings that seemed specific to a subgroup.

• Could important messages be overlooked?

You may not be a librarian in an academic setting but consider…...

10. To what extent could the implications of of this study be used by you in your local setting?

HINT: Even if the findings themselves are not applicable could the methodology inform your own approach to finding out local information needs?

How was it for you?

• We have examined an information needs analysis (selected for reasons of currency and availability) and applied a purpose-specific checklist.

• Did you find the checklist helpful in examining the study? Consider the implications of this study for your own planned information needs analysis. Did the authors relate their findings back to the corporate objectives of their organisation?

What you need to do:

Answer the following question (You do not need to copy your answer in your portfolio):

What are your own reflections about – the method used, the sampling strategy and the usefulness of the results?

• WELL DONE!

• You’ve considered someone else’s analysis - you are now in a position to think about doing your own!