Choice Reviews: A Local Comparison of
Chemistry Monograph Circulation
David E. Hubbard
Science & Engineering Librarian
Texas A&M University Libraries
 Started 1964
 7,000 reviews/year
Choice
Magazine
 Print and Online
Reprinted with permission from Choice
(http://www.cro3.org/), copyright by the
American Library Association.
 “…most widely used selection aid
in American college libraries…”
(Evans, 2000, p. 97)
 Book Reviews
 Mostly favorable
Books
Reviews:
Criticisms
and
Limitations
 Quality
 Timeliness
 Small number
 Usefulness
 Choice Selection Policy
Project +
Research
Question
 Use Choice recommended titles
as checklist for our chemistry
monograph collection.
 Do the recommended Choice
chemistry monograph titles
circulate any more than the
chemistry monograph collection
as a whole.
 84% of monographs are
acquired via our approval
plan (including DDA)
A Little
Background
 Flexible Fund Structure
(vanDuinkerken et al., 2008)
 My Use of Choice Reviews
 Disclaimer: I was Choice
Reviewer (2006-2009)
Choice Titles and Circulation
Literature
Review
Some studies found a relationship
between Choice titles and circulation,
while others did not.
Choice Titles vs. Collection
 Hypothesis Testing
Methodology
(Approach)
 Ho: Mean circulation of the two populations
is the same (u1=u2)
 H1: Mean circulation of the two populations
is different (u1≠u2)
 Percentage of Titles Circulated
 General Chemistry Collection
Titles (“Non-Choice” Titles)
Methodology
(Data)
 Choice Chemistry Titles
 Circulation Data
 Choice Recommended
Chemistry Titles*
Results
(Titles)
 Chemistry Collection
 2,525 titles
* 436 total, 404 recommended, and
397 cataloged at Texas A&M as QDs.
Circulation: Choice Titles versus
General Chemistry Collection
Results
(Circulation)
t-test resulted in a p-value of 0.0063,
so the null hypothesis is rejected.
The mean circulation for Choice titles
and the Collection is different!
Percentage of Titles Circulated
Results
(Titles)
 Mean circulation was skewed, so
comparison of the median may be
more representative.
Discussion
and
Conclusion
 On a percentage basis Choice
chemistry titles circulated more than
the general chemistry collection.
 The print chemistry monographs
available both in print and online
circulated as much as print only.
Evans, G. E. S. M. Z. (2000). Developing library and information
center collections (4th ed.). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Jobe, M. M., & Levine-Clark, M. (2008). Use and Non-Use of
Choice-Reviewed Titles in Undergraduate Libraries. Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 34(4), 295-304.
Levine-Clark, M., & Jobe, M. M. (2007). Do Reviews Matter? An
Analysis of Usage and Holdings of Choice-Reviewed Titles
Within a Consortium. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(6),
639-646.
References
Schmitt, J. P., Saunders, S., & Schmitt, J. P. (1983).
Assessment of Choice as a tool for selection. College &
Research Libraries, 44, 375-380.
Stebelman, S. (1996). Using Choice as a collection assessment
tool. Collection Building, 15(2), 4-11.
vanDuinkerken, W., Smith, J., Harrell, J., Reynolds, L. J.,
Tucker, S., & Carrigan, E. (2008). Creating a flexible fund
structure to meet the needs and goals of the library and its
users. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services,
32(3/4), 142-149.
Williams, K. C., & Best, R. (2006). E-Book Usage and the
“Choice” Outstanding Academic Book List: Is there a
correlation? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(5), 474-478.
Questions?