...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Evidence Based Library and Information Practice >Quality of Online Chat Reference Answers Differ between Local and Consortium Library Staff: Providing Consortium Staff with More Local Information Can Mitigate these Differences
【24h】

Quality of Online Chat Reference Answers Differ between Local and Consortium Library Staff: Providing Consortium Staff with More Local Information Can Mitigate these Differences

机译：在线聊天参考质量回答了当地图书馆和财团图书馆工作人员的不同：向财团工作人员提供更多的本地信息可以缓解这些差异

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

A Review of: Meert, D.L., & Given, L.M. (2009). Measuring quality in chat reference consortia: A comparative analysis of responses to users’ queries.” College & Research Libraries, 70(1), 71-84. Objective – To evaluate the quality of answers from a 24/7 online chat reference service by comparing the responses given by local and consortia library staff using in-house reference standards, and by assessing whether or not the questions were answered in real time. Design – Comparative analysis of online chat reference transcripts. Setting – Large academic library in Alberta, Canada. Subjects – A total of online chat reference transcripts from the first year of consortium service were analyzed for this study. Of these, 252 were answered by local library staff and 226 from consortia (non-local) library staff. Methods – A stratified random sample of 1,402 transcripts were collected from the first year of consortium service (beginning of October to end of April). This method was then applied monthly, resulting in a sample size of 478 transcripts. In the first part of the study, responses were coded within the transcripts with a “yes” or “no” label to determine if they met the standards set by the local university library’s reference management. Reference transaction standards included questions regarding whether or not correct information or instructions were given and if not, whether the user was referred to an authoritative source for the correct information. The second part of the study coded transcripts with a “yes” or “no” designation as to whether the user received an answer from the staff member in “real time” and if not, was further analyzed to determine why the user did not receive a real-time response. Each transcript was coded as reflecting one of four “question categories” that included library user information, request for instruction, request for academic information, and miscellaneouson-library questions. Main Results – When all question types were integrated, analysis revealed that local library staff met reference transaction standards 94% of the time. Consortia staff met these same standards 82% of the time. The groups showed the most significant differences when separated into the question categories. Local library staff met the standards for “Library User Information” questions 97% of the time, while consortia staff met the standards only 76% of the time. “Request for Instruction” questions were answered with 97% success by local library staff and with 84% success by consortia. Local library staff met the “Request for Academic Information” standards 90% of the time while consortia staff met these standards 87% of the time. For “Miscellaneous Non-Library Information” questions, 93% of local and 83% of consortia staff met the reference transaction standards. For the second part of the study, 89% of local library staff answered the questions in real time, as opposed to only 69% of non-local staff. The three most common reasons for not answering in real time (known as deferment categories) included not knowing the answer (48% local; 40% consortia), technical difficulty (26% local; 16% consortia), and information not being available (15% local; 31% consortia). Conclusion – The results of this research reveal that there are differences in the quality of answers between local and non-local staff when taking part in an online chat reference consortium, although these discrepancies vary depending on the type of question. Providing non-local librarians with the information they need to answer questions accurately and in real time can mitigate these differences.
机译：评论：Meert，D.L.和Given，L.M.（2009）。衡量聊天参考协会的质量：对用户查询的回复进行比较分析。”高校研究图书馆，70（1），71-84。目的–通过比较本地和财团图书馆工作人员使用内部参考标准给出的回答，以及评估问题是否得到实时回答，来评估24/7在线聊天参考服务的回答质量。设计–在线聊天参考成绩单的比较分析。设置–加拿大艾伯塔省的大型学术图书馆。主题–这项研究分析了来自联合体服务第一年的在线聊天参考成绩单。其中，有252位得到了当地图书馆工作人员的回答，有226位得到了财团（非本地）图书馆工作人员的回答。方法–从联合体服务的第一年（10月至4月底）收集了1,402份成绩单的分层随机样本。然后每月应用此方法，导致样本数量为478个笔录。在研究的第一部分中，答案在成绩单中编码为“是”或“否”，以确定它们是否符合当地大学图书馆参考管理部门设定的标准。参考交易标准包括以下问题：是否提供了正确的信息或说明，如果没有提供，是否向用户推荐了正确的信息的权威来源。研究的第二部分对成绩单的编码是“是”或“否”，表示用户是否“实时”收到了工作人员的答复，如果没有，则进一步分析以确定用户为什么没有收到答复实时响应。每个成绩单被编码为反映四个“问题类别”之一，其中包括图书馆用户信息，指令要求，学术信息要求以及其他/非图书馆问题。主要结果–综合所有问题类型后，分析表明，本地图书馆工作人员有94％的时间达到了参考交易标准。联盟的员工有82％的时间达到了这些相同的标准。当分成问题类别时，这些组显示出最显着的差异。本地图书馆工作人员在97％的时间内符合“图书馆用户信息”问题的标准，而财团工作人员仅在76％的时间内符合标准。本地图书馆工作人员回答“请求指导”的问题获得了97％的成功率，财团获得了84％的成功率。当地图书馆工作人员90％的时间达到了“学术信息请求”标准，而财团工作人员87％的时间达到了这些标准。对于“其他非图书馆信息”问题，有93％的当地员工和83％的财团员工符合参考交易标准。在研究的第二部分中，有89％的本地图书馆工作人员实时回答了问题，而只有69％的非本地工作人员。不能实时回答的三个最常见的原因（称为延期类别）包括：不知道答案（本地48％;联盟40％），技术难度（本地26％;联盟16％）和信息不可用（ 15％本地; 31％联盟。结论–这项研究的结果表明，参加在线聊天参考财团的本地员工和非本地员工在回答质量上存在差异，尽管这些差异根据问题的类型而有所不同。向非本地图书馆员提供他们准确，实时地回答问题所需的信息，可以减轻这些差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号