Interlibrary Loan Article Use and User GPA: Findings and Implications for Library Services

Abstract

A recent institutional study at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay investigated the academic achievement of interlibrary loan (ILL) users as compared to non-ILL users. While this study provided important local insight into ILL use and the demographics of ILL users (class rank, major), it uncovered a rather minor overall GPA difference, .20 GPA points, between ILL users and non-ILL users. However, within this data was an interesting subset that once thoroughly investigated, provided rich details about ILL article use, the users who rely on ILL for articles and the GPA differences between users' across the spectrum of ILL article use. The resulting analysis compares users who use ILL for a large number of articles, those who use ILL for a medium number of articles, those who use ILL for a small number of articles and those who do not use ILL. Takeaways from the data presented should provide libraries and practitioners with a greater understanding of ILL article use, its role in user information seeking behaviors, its correlational effect on student academic achievement, and for whom-ILL article users-libraries are incurring the high cost of articles through ILL.

A Case Study on Pseudo-Demand of Document Delivery and the Strategies

“…In 14.16% of the total. As the data show, the main users are from liberal arts schools, and the demands of users from science schools are relatively low.…”

Data Management Practices in Academic Library Learning Analytics: A Critical Review

“…A significant number of studies, 46 of the 54 examined, imply transferring individual-level data between the library and a central university office (Allison, 2015;Black & Murphy, 2017;Bowles-Terry, 2012;Çetin & Howard, 2016;Collins & Stone, 2014;Coulter, Clarke, & Scamman, 2007;Cox & Jantti, 2012a, 2012bde Jager et al, 2018;Fransen & Peterson, 2016;Goodall & Pattern, 2011;Haddow, 2013;Haddow & Joseph, 2010;Jantti, 2016;Jantti & Cox, 2013;J. L. Jones, 2010;Kot & Jones, 2015;LeMaistre, 2015;LeMaistre et al, 2018;Massengale, Piotrowski, & Savage, 2016;McCarthy, 2017;Montenegro et al, 2016;Murray et al, 2016;Nackerud et al, 2012Nackerud et al, , 2013Odeh, 2012;Pepper & Jantti, 2015;Renaud et al, 2015;Scarletto et al, 2013;Scott, 2014;Soria et al, 2014Soria et al, , 2017aSoria et al, , 2017bSoria et al, , 2013Soria et al, , 2015Squibb & Mikkelsen, 2016;Stemmer & Mahan, 2015Stone, Pattern, & Ramsden, 2012;Thorpe et al, 2016;…”

“…Most libraries characterize resource usage as either the student "did use" or "didn't use" that resource type during the study or group usage into several frequency levels. However, eight studies counted the total number of transactions in a specific category (Allison, 2015;Çetin & Howard, 2016;Collins & Stone, 2014;LeMaistre et al, 2018;Montenegro et al, 2016;Scott, 2014;Thorpe et al, 2016). This method is touted as a way to protect patron privacy when it may not, in fact, truly do so.…”

Unethical Numbers? A Meta-analysis of Library Learning Analytics Studies

“…Four grade studies did not provide enough information in the published report to calculate an effect size (Davidson et al 2013;deJager 2002;Moore et al 2002;Scott 2014). Three grade studies (Chodock 2018;Stemmer & Mahan 2016;Wells 1995) and one retention study (Stemmer & Mahan 2016) were excluded due to self-reported independent variables in their research design.…”