近些年，图书馆评估研究热火朝天。关于图书馆评估研究的科研成果论文论著铺天盖地，多属于理论探讨，有纸上谈兵之嫌。关于图书馆评估的实践，不乏有一定声势的，但给人感觉，多属虎头蛇尾。美国《图书馆杂志》搞的2009年公共图书馆评估服务指数，给全美范围公共图书馆评估定“星”。笔者感觉很美，理论与实践，相得益彰。
    具体美在哪里？首先，研究结果公开，研究方法透明，研究目的明确；其次，由《图书馆杂志》期刊策划、实施，彰显科学研究的价值；再次，研究思路清晰，数据翔实；最后，一级指标抓住“核心”，简洁有力，易操作。
    如此宏大的研究一年做了两轮。原因是2006年的数据2008年11月发布，而2007年的数据，2009年5月发布，间隔半年。第2轮评估的数据基础是2007年的数据。选择2007年作为研究对象的另一个原因是，此时经济衰退尚未开始。据称，计划今后继续做下去，每年一次。数据来源是公共图书馆提交给图书馆管理机构的发布的年度报告，这些数据经过博物馆和图书馆服务研究所（IMLS）全国性的汇编。数据的真实性或者完整性直接由被评估图书馆或者他们的管理机构负责。《图书馆杂志》指数评分是基于4个人均服务产出指标：读者到馆访问情况（library visits）,流通情况（circulation）,（规划实施情况） （program attendance）与网络用户利用情况（public Internet computer use），4个指标密切关联，进行了归一化统计学处理。整个研究，可谓举重若轻，便捷高效。
    关于美国公共图书馆服务评估，《图书馆杂志》有大量资料。笔者尚未全面阅读，更未深入领悟，只是觉得有许多可取之处，值得我们学习与借鉴，希望引起更多关注。不当之处，恳请批评指正。
 

参考文献：
America's Star Libraries (Article as it appeared in print publication).http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6705856.html
LJ Index of Public Library Service 2009, Round 2
The LJ Index of Public Library Service, sponsored by Baker & Taylor's Bibliostat, recognizes libraries based on the levels of service they provide, but its relevance does not stop there. Library directors and trustees are studying their LJ Index scores and the four statistics on which it is based. In some cases, comparison against spending peers is helping to identify measures of service that decision-makers feel ought to be higher, and libraries are taking steps to expand their service capacity. In others, decisions are being made that will improve the accuracy and completeness of local data reports. And some libraries without a star library rating are using the index to improve their services and how they are measured as well as to increase public awareness and financial support.

Many public libraries are adapting to dramatic economic changes—static or reduced resources despite predictably increased public demand for library services. This second round of the LJ Index is based on 2007 data, which predates the recession's onset, but a library's score and star library status, where applicable, may be helpful in defending against cuts or proposing new or increased funding.

The LJ 2/15/09 issue reported the first star library ratings based on the LJ Index. Less than a year later, we are back with the second round, thanks to a dramatic improvement in data timeliness achieved by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) in its annual census of U.S. public libraries. Data for 2006 were released in November 2008, while data for 2007 were released in May 2009—a six-month turnaround. Planned as an annual event, the LJ Index will continue to be published as soon as possible after each year's data become available.

The LJ Index Basics

The latest LJ Index of Public Library Service scores and star library ratings are based on 2007 data. The data are reported annually by public libraries to their state library agencies and compiled nationally by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). Any issues with data accuracy or completeness should be directed to local libraries and/or their state library agencies.

LJ Index scores are based on four per capita service outputs: library visits, circulation, program attendance, and public Internet computer use. These four measures are closely related to one another statistically. Other service outputs available nationally—registration, reference transactions, and interlibrary lending—are not sufficiently correlated with these four measures to justify their inclusion in the same index.

By definition, service outputs don't measure quality, value, excellence, or relevance of services to the community. The LJ Index is a rating system based on key related service outputs, not overall quality. National-level data required to measure library service quality, even in a limited fashion, do not exist.

A library's LJ Index score is based on the relationship among its four statistics and the averages of those statistics among its peers based on total operating expenditures. Because we use only four statistics and do not reduce these to ranks or percentiles, a very high value on one or more statistics can compensate for lower values on other statistics. This “sensitivity” of the LJ Index is intended to encourage both the identification of exceptional levels of specific services as well as thoughtful review of the validity and reliability of local data reports.

To be scored on the LJ Index, a library must meet four criteria: 1) match the IMLS definition of a public library; 2) serve a population of at least 1000; 3) have total operating expenditures of at least $10,000; 4) report all four of the service outputs on which the LJ Index is based.

LJ Index ratings for all the included libraries and the data on which they are based are readily available via the LJ Index homepage at www.libraryjournal.com/ljindex2009X. In addition to these data, national and state rankings and national percentiles may be accessed and analyzed graphically and interactively by those with access to Bibliostat Connect, which provides the value-added benefit for customized analyses by linking via LJ Index data to other data from IMLS, the Public Library Data Service, the state library agency, and the U.S. Census.

More detailed facts about the LJ Index as well as responses to frequently asked questions (FAQ) may be found at www.libraryjournal.com/ljindex2009X. The FAQ addresses a variety of issues raised by readers since the launch of the index, including:

the relationship between service output and overall quality
the relationship between service outputs and resource inputs
the relationships between individual service outputs and LJ Index scores
why registration and reference statistics are not included in the LJ Index
the statistical advantage of per capita ratios to libraries in certain circumstances
how circumstances in different states affect LJ Index scores and star library ratings
how the LJ Index was designed and how scores are calculated

转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自王启云科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-213646-317018.html

上一篇：世界读书日读阅读
下一篇：说说科研奖励