Statistical Measures Alone Cannot Determine Which Database (BNI, CINAHL, MEDLINE, or EMBASE) Is the Most Useful for Searching Undergraduate Nursing Topics. A Review of: Stokes, P., Foster, A., & Urquhart, C. (2009). Beyond relevance and recall: Testing new user-centred measures of database performance. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(3), 220-231.
Author(s)
Giovanna BadiaKeywords
recallprecision
database performance
Bibliography. Library science. Information resources
Z
DOAJ:Library and Information Science
DOAJ:Social Sciences
Bibliography. Library science. Information resources
Z
DOAJ:Library and Information Science
DOAJ:Social Sciences
Bibliography. Library science. Information resources
Z
Bibliography. Library science. Information resources
Z
Bibliography. Library science. Information resources
Z
Full record
Show full item recordAbstract
<b>Objective</b> – The research project sought to determine which of four databases was the most useful for searching undergraduate nursing topics. <br><b>Design</b> – Comparative database evaluation. <br><b>Setting</b> – Nursing and midwifery students at Homerton School of Health Studies (now part of Anglia Ruskin University), Cambridge, United Kingdom, in 2005-2006. <br><b>Subjects</b> – The subjects were four databases: British Nursing Index (BNI), CINAHL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE).<br><b>Methods</b> – This was a comparative study using title searches to compare BNI (BritishNursing Index), CINAHL, MEDLINE and EMBASE.According to the authors, this is the first study to compare BNI with other databases. BNI is a database produced by British libraries that indexes the nursing and midwifery literature. It covers over 240 British journals, and includes references to articles from health sciences journals that are relevant to nurses and midwives (British Nursing Index, n.d.).The researchers performed keyword searches in the title field of the four databases for the dissertation topics of nine nursing and midwifery students enrolled in undergraduate dissertation modules. The list of titles of journals articles on their topics were given to the students and they were asked to judge the relevancy of the citations. The title searches were evaluated in each of the databases using the following criteria: <br>• precision (the number of relevant results obtained in the database for a search topic, divided by the total number of results obtained in the database search);<br>• recall (the number of relevant results obtained in the database for a search topic, divided by the total number of relevant results obtained on that topic from all four database searches);<br>• novelty (the number of relevant results that were unique in the database search, which was calculated as a percentage of the total number of relevant results found in the database);<br>• originality (the number of unique relevant results obtained in the database for a search topic, which was calculated as a percentage of the total number of unique results found in all four database searches);<br>• availability (the number of relevant full text articles obtained from the database search results, which was calculated as a percentage of the total number of relevant results found in the database);<br>• retrievability (the number of relevant full text articles obtained from the database search results, which was calculated as a percentage of the total number of relevant full text articles found from all four database searches);<br>• effectiveness (the probable odds that a database will obtain relevant search results);<br>• efficiency (the probable odds that a database will obtain both unique and relevant search results); and<br>• accessibility (the probable odds that the full text of the relevant references obtained from the database search are available electronically or in print via the user’s library).<p>Students decided whether the search results were relevant to their topic by using a “yes/no” scale. Only record titles were used to make relevancy judgments.<br><b>Main Results</b> – Friedman’s Test and odds ratios were used to compare the performance of BNI, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE when searching for information about nursing topics.These two statistical measures demonstrated the following:<br>• BNI had the best average score for the precision, availability, effectiveness, and accessibility of search results;<br>• CINAHL scored the highest for the novelty, retrievability, and efficiency of results, and ranked second place for all the other criteria;<br>• MEDLINE excelled in the areas of recall and originality, and ranked second place for novelty and retrievability; and<br>• EMBASE did not obtain the highest, or second highest score, for any of the criteria.<br><b>Conclusion</b> – According to the authors, these results suggest that none of the databases studied can be considered the most useful for searching undergraduate nursing topics. CINAHL and MEDLINE emerge as consistently good performers, but both databases are needed to find relevant material on a topic.Friedman’s Test clearly differentiated between the databases for the accessibility of search results. Odds ratio testing may assist librarians to make decisions about database purchases. BNI scored the highest for availability of results and CINAHL ranked the highest for retrievability. Statistical measures need to be supplemented with qualitative data about user preferences in order to determine which database is the most useful to our users.Date
2011-03-01Type
ArticleIdentifier
oai:doaj.org/article:41fa0a220c6f4e08a96dc8c30bd910411715-720X
https://doaj.org/article/41fa0a220c6f4e08a96dc8c30bd91041
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Several Factors of Library Publishing Services Facilitate Scholarly Communication Functions. A Review of: Park, J.-H., & Shim, J. (2011). Exploring how library publishing services facilitate scholarly communication. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 43(1), 76-89. doi: 10.1353/scp.2011.0038Leslie Bussert (University of Alberta, 2012-12-01)<b>Objective</b> – To identify and examine thefactors of library publishing services thatfacilitate scholarly communication.<br><b>Design</b> – Analysis of library publishing serviceprograms.<br><b>Setting</b> – North American research libraries.<br><b>Subjects</b> – Eight research libraries selectedfrom the signatories for the Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity (COPE) CornellUniversity Library’s Center for InnovativePublishing; Dartmouth College Library’sDigital Publishing Program and ScholarsPortal Project; MIT Libraries’ Office ofScholarly Publishing and Licensing; ColumbiaUniversity Libraries’ Center for DigitalResearch and Scholarship; University ofMichigan Library’s Scholarly PublishingOffice; Duke University Library’s Office ofScholarly Communications; University ofCalgary Libraries and Cultural Resources’Centre for Scholarly Communication; andSimon Fraser University Library’s ScholarlyPublishing.<br><b>Methods</b> – The authors used Roosendaal andGeurt’s (1997) four functions of scholarlycommunication to analyze and categorizelibrary publishing services provided bylibraries included in the study. The fourfunctions of scholarly communication includeregistration, certification, awareness, andarchiving.<br><b>Main Results</b> – Analysis of the registration functions provided by library publishing services in this study revealed three types of facilitating factors: intellectual property, licensing, and publishing. These include services such as repositories for digital scholarly work and research, ISBN/ISSN registration, and digital publishing. Analysis of archiving functions demonstrated that most programs in the study focus on repository-related services in support of digital content preservation of papers, datasets, technical reports, etc. Analysis of certification functions provided by these services exposed a focus on expert review and research support. These include services like professional assessment of information sources, consultation on appropriate literature and information-seeking tools, and writing or copyright advisory services. Analysis of awareness function showed search aids and knowledge-sharing platforms to be the main facilitating factors. These include services like metadata application, schema, and standards or scholarly portals enabling knowledge-sharing among scholars.<br><b>Conclusion</b> – This study identified several services offered by these library publishing programs which can be categorized as facilitators under Roosendaal and Geurt’s (1997) four functions of scholarly communication. The majority of the libraries in the study treated library publishing services as part of broader scholarly communication units or initiatives. Digital publishing (registration function) was offered by all programs analyzed in the study, while traditional peer-review services (certification function) were not. Widely adopted among programs in the study were the use of social networking tools (awareness function) and self-publishing (archiving function). The authors recommend developing services that facilitate peer review and assert the need to provide a knowledge-sharing mechanism within the academic community that facilitates the scholarly communication process.
-
Librarians View Instruction as Integral to Their Professional Identities. A Review of: Julien, H., & Genuis, S. K. (2011). Librarians’ experience of the teaching role: A national survey of librarians. Library & Information Science Research, 33(2), 103-111. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2010.09.005Ann Medaille (University of Alberta, 2011-01-01)<b>Objective</b> – To explore the ways that professional and non-professional library staff experience and relate to their instructional roles.<br><b>Design</b> – Online survey.<br><b>Setting</b> – All types of Canadian libraries, including public, school, post-secondary, medical, special, and other libraries.<br><b>Subjects</b> – A total of 788 library staff persons with instructional responsibilities.<br><b>Methods</b> – In 2009, the authors constructed a 20-minute anonymous survey that contained questions about the nature of librarians’ instructional work, their preparation for doing instruction, and their experiences as instructors. Subjects were recruited via several electronic mail lists. The authors used SPSS to analyze the quantitative data and NVivo to analyze the qualitative data.<br><b>Main Results</b> – The study found that the majority of subjects believed instruction to be integral to their professional identities, although some viewed it as an imposition. The nature of instructional work varied greatly, but included short presentations; a series of sessions; semester-length courses; and one-on-one instruction. Subjects prepared for instruction through on-the-job training; reading professional literature; attending workshops and conferences; taking a formal course in instruction; and other methods. On the whole, training helped library staff to feel more prepared for teaching and to embrace instructional work as integral to their professional identities. Study participants derived enjoyment from instruction in the form of satisfaction with facilitating student learning; relationship building; personal development; task variety; and appreciation of the heightened profile of library staff. Subjects also described several barriers to teaching, including administrative, technological, and logistical barriers; client and faculty interactions; and interpersonal challenges such as nervousness or lack of preparation. Finally, subjects described the ways that instruction has changed with the impact of new technologies, increased expectations, and changing pedagogical practices. <br><b>Conclusion</b> – Library administrators should support the teaching duties of librarians and library staff by helping to provide them with adequate preparation time, resources, emotional support, and training. In addition, formal preparation for instruction should be integrated into professional library training programs, including MLIS programs, to better prepare librarians and other library staff to participate in information literacy instruction.
-
The Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism & Jewish CultureDavid Anderson (American Theological Library Association, 2013-01-01)