Dissertation | Conclusions < Revised technique > Bibliography

Auditing catalogue quality by random sampling

8. A revised technique for the catalogue audit tool

The catalogue audit tool is successful as piloted for evaluating the accuracy of bibliographic records. It should be considered just part of a toolkit for testing catalogue quality, along with such tools as the collection-to-catalogue test for completeness, focused checks of the validity and appropriateness of assigned name and subject headings, evaluations of serials cataloguing and duplicate detection.

• Before starting the audit it is important to profile the collection and its cataloguing. The audit evaluates accuracy in the library's own terms, so variations resulting from known local practices are not penalised. At a higher level, knowledge of the sources of records and of the different cataloguing rules and software that have been used is invaluable when interpreting the results.
• Choose the fields to be examined. Material description, genre, language and location are often inapplicable; other fields may need to be introduced or moved according to their perceived importance.
• Decide whether MARC errors and minor errors in capitalisation, punctuation and diacritics are important or can be ignored.
• A random sample of catalogue records must be obtained, either from the computerised library system or by systematic sampling of the shelves or a shelflist. The number of records to audit depends on the acceptable margin of error in the result: for a margin of 4.9%, 3.5% or 2.5%, choose a sample of 400, 800 or 1500 items, respectively. (If the error rate in the catalogue can be estimated, however roughly, then it is often possible to justify smaller samples using the formula in section 4.2.4.) The sample size is independent of the size of the collection.
• Full records should be printed for annotation with errors. If this is not possible, for example when the sample is taken directly from the shelves, then errors can be recorded concisely using the codes on the worksheet; alternatively, the worksheet can be copied as many times as there are records in the sample and the relevant boxes ticked.
• Check the cataloguing of each item in the sample using the worksheet (8.1), comparing the catalogue record to the physical item. If an item cannot be found and is not on loan, note its classmark and search for it on a second occasion; if it is on loan then recall it.
• Detailed results can be displayed in the table given on the worksheet, or entered in a spreadsheet or database for further manipulation. The principal figure to calculate is the proportion of records with an error anywhere in Groups 1 and 2 (access points); the proportion of records with any error is also worth computing. Cite these figures with the margin of error chosen earlier.

8.1 Worksheet

Control number: ______________________________________
Date of cataloguing: ______________________________________

If the catalogue record lists no copies held for this item, record code Z or tick this box [ ]

Please tick a box for each field in the catalogue record, or note the codes against each record (for example T2 S1 M3). For author and subject headings, consider only whether they match the form given in the authority file.

If there are other errors in the record (for example absence of uniform title) then list them below but do NOT count them in the statistics.

Dissertation | Conclusions < Revised technique > Bibliography