Articles about library assessment
Beck, S. G. (1996). Wayfinding in libraries. Library Hi Tech, 14(1), 27-36.
Berger, K. W., & Hines, R. W. (1994). What does the user really want? The library user survey project at Duke University. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 20(5-6), 306-309.
Brown, J. M. (2010). Informal assessment for library middle managers. Library Leadership and Management, 24(1), 18-22.
Cook, C. (2002). The maturation of assessment in academic libraries: The role of LibQUAL+. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 3(2), 40-42.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, B. (2002). Score norms for improving library service quality: A LibQUAL+tm study. Portal. Libraries and the Academy, 2(1), 13-26.
Cook, C. & Maciel, M. (2010) A Decade of Assessment at a Research-Extensive University Library Using LibQUAL+® Research Library Issues: A Bimonthly Report from ARL, CNI and SPARC, 271, 4-12.
Eaton, G. (1991). Wayfinding in the library: Book searches and route uncertainty. RQ, 30(4), 519-527.
Glitz, B. (1997). The focus group technique in library research: An introduction. Bulletin of the medical library association, 85(4), 385.
Higa-Moore, M. L., Bunnett, B., Mayo, H. G., & Olney, C. A. (2002). Use of focus groups in a library's strategic planning process. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90(1), 86.
Hiller, S. & Porat, L. (2011). Academic library as a place: Users and uses. In S. Graham Margaret & Thornton (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Northumbria international conference on performance measurement in libraries and information services (pp. 263-273). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Northumbria University Press.
Hiller, S. (2001). Assessing user needs, satisfaction, and library performance at the University of Washington ibraries. Library Trends, 49, 4.
Hiller, S. (2002). How different are they? A comparison by academic area of library use, priorities, and information needs at the University of Washington. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 33.
Hiller, S., & Self, J. (2004). From measurement to management: Using data wisely for planning and decision-making. Library Trends, 53(1), 129-155. Horan, M. (1999).
Horan, M. (1999). What students see: Sketch maps as tools for assessing knowledge of libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25(3), 187-201.
Kyrillidou, M. (2009). Item sampling in service quality assessment surveys to improve response rates and reduce respondent burden: The "LibQUAL+® Lite" randomized control trial (rct). Unpublished PhD., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Leitao, B. J., & Verguerio, W. (2000). Using the focus group approach for evaluating customers' opinions: The experience of a Brazilian academic library. New Library world, 101, 60-65.
Porat, L. (2016). User feedback as a management tool in academic libraries: a review. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 17(3). 214-223
Porat, L. (2013). Marketing and Assessment in Academic Libraries: A Marriage of Convenience or True Love? Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 8(2). 60-67.
Thompson, B., Cook, C., & Thompson, R. L. (2002). Reliability and structure of LibQUAL+ tm scores: Measuring perceived library service quality. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2(1), 3-12.
Thompson, B., Kyrillidou, M., & Cook, C. (2009a). Equating scores on" lite" and long library user survey forms: The LibQUAL+ lite randomized control trials. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 10(3), 212-219.
Thompson, B., Kyrillidou, M., & Cook, C. (2009b). Item sampling in service quality assessment surveys to improve response rates and reduce respondent burden: The "LibQUAL+ up/up lite" example. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 10(1), 6-16.
Thompson, B., Kyrillidou, M., & Cook, C. (2010). Does using item sampling methods in library service quality assessment compromise data integrity or zone of tolerance interpretation? A LibQUAL+ֲ® Lite study, LibraryAssessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment. Baltimore MD. Baltimore, USA
