Auditing catalogue quality by random sampling

A Master's dissertation by Owen Massey, M.Math., submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Master of Arts degree of Loughborough University, August 2000.

Supervisor: Ann O'Brien, Ph.D., MLIS, Dip.Lib., B.A., Department of Information Science

How do you measure the quality of a library catalogue? What is catalogue quality anyway? This work aims to answer the first question by examining one method for assessing the accuracy of catalogue records. If your principal interest is in the method rather than its ramifications, it is explained by Ann Chapman of UKOLN who has developed it as the CAT-ASSESS tool.

This dissertation was awarded the 2001 Library and Information Research Group Postgraduate Prize. A shorter version has been published as:
Ann Chapman and Owen Massey. A catalogue quality audit tool.
Library Management 23 (no. 6/7, 2002) 314-324
Library and Information Research News 26 (no. 82, Spring 2002) 26-37 (E-LIS open archive)

• Abstract and acknowledgements
• 1. Introduction
  • 1.1 Aims and objectives
• 2. Literature review
  • 2.1 Management tools and performance measurement
  • 2.2 Database quality
  • 2.3 Quality in cataloguing
    • 2.3.1 What is cataloguing quality?
    • 2.3.2 Impact studies
    • 2.3.3 Co-operative cataloguing
    • 2.3.4 Cataloguing in publication
    • 2.3.5 Searching for misspellings
    • 2.3.6 Intactness of the catalogue
  • 2.4 Automating error detection
    • 2.4.1 Spelling checkers and spelling correctors
    • 2.4.2 Duplicate records
  • 2.5 Statistical methods in librarianship
  • 2.6 Implications for the technique
• 3. The proposed technique
  • 3.1 Worksheet
• 4. Commentary on the proposed technique
  • 4.1 The scope of the audit
  • 4.2 Choosing the sample
    • 4.2.1 The simple random sample
    • 4.2.2 The systematic sample
    • 4.2.3 The stratified sample
    • 4.2.4 Sample size
    • 4.2.5 Problems in collecting the sample
  • 4.3 The catalogue-to-collection test for accuracy
    • 4.3.1 Control number
    • 4.3.2 No holdings
    • 4.3.3 Title
    • 4.3.4 Material description
    • 4.3.5 Statement of responsibility and author heading(s)
    • 4.3.6 Edition
    • 4.3.7 Physical description
    • 4.3.8 Imprint
    • 4.3.9 Series
    • 4.3.10 Classmark
    • 4.3.11 Subject heading(s)
    • 4.3.12 Genre / category
    • 4.3.13 Location / branch ID
    • 4.3.14 MARC fields
    • 4.3.15 Other fields
  • 4.4 The collection-to-catalogue test for intactness
    • 4.4.1 Problems determining the sample
    • 4.4.2 Duplicates
  • 4.5 Staffing issues
  • 4.6 Compiling the results
    • 4.6.1 Margin of error
    • 4.6.2 Major and minor errors
• 5. The pilot study
  • 5.1 Background and catalogue profile
  • 5.2 The first (convenience) sample
    • 5.2.1 Bias in the sample
  • 5.3 Results of the catalogue-to-collection test on the first sample
    • 5.3.1 Title
    • 5.3.2 Statement of responsibility
    • 5.3.3 Author headings
    • 5.3.4 Edition
    • 5.3.5 Physical description
    • 5.3.6 Imprint
    • 5.3.7 Series
    • 5.3.8 Classmark
    • 5.3.9 Subject headings
    • 5.3.10 Other errors
    • 5.3.11 Variations over time
  • 5.4 Results of the collection-to-catalogue test on the first sample
  • 5.5 The second (systematic) sample
• 6. Analysis of results
  • 6.1 The catalogue-to-collection test
  • 6.2 The collection-to-catalogue test
  • 6.3 How representative is Bath?
• 7. Conclusions
  • 7.1 Simplifying the audit
  • 7.2 Technical issues
  • 7.3 Checking authority control
  • 7.4 Extending the audit
• 8. A revised technique for the catalogue audit tool
  • 8.1 Worksheet
• Bibliography
• Appendix 1. Sample record from Bath pilot