The University of Houston Main Library collection is a large, multi-format, and ever evolving research collection supporting a large student, faculty and research population. The library is tasked with directly supporting the overall mission of the university which states "The mission of the University of Houston is to offer nationally competitive and internationally recognized opportunities for learning, discovery and engagement to a diverse population of students in a real-world setting. The collection strives to support over 12 academic colleges and an interdisciplinary Honors college as well as a diverse offering of over 120 undergraduate majors. In order to achieve this level of support for the university community, a large collection assessment including data collection from multiple sources is necessary to capture current coverage per subject. A project team was formed and tasked with designing and developing a high-level collection assessment project to assess the breadth and coverage of both print and electronic resources at the University of Houston MD Anderson Library. The collection assessment focuses on developing methodology to best capture current holdings per call number ranges as well as analysis of the holdings. The subject analysis includes gathering data from circulation, usage reports, interlibrary loan database, and the OPAC in order to understand the current strengths and weaknesses of both the print and electronic content per subject area. This data collection constitutes the first phase of the research project and the research team proposes to present some initial findings along with a brief overview of the methodology. Future directions will be presented including our need to validate this data against acquisitions data and interlibrary load data for the past several years to identify potential subject areas that need further collection development. Presenters: Jackie Bronicki Collections and Online Resources Coordinator, University of Houston Irene Ke Psychology and Social Work Librarian, University of Houston Cherie Turner Chemistry Librarian, University of Houston Shawn Vaillancourt Education Librarian, University of Houston

1. Opening up a can of worms
to grow a garden!

2. • Project Context, Task and Goals
• Methodology, Data Collection, Data Cleaning
• Analytical Plan
• Initial Findings
• Challenges and Future Directions

5. • Big Data
• Assessment and Evaluation Environment
• Prove (or Disprove?) Value
• Stakeholders
• User Needs

6. Research Question 1:
What are the best measurements for evaluating
the current scope of the collection?
Research Question 2:
What subject areas are not adequately covered in
the current collection?

7. went smaller
started big . . .

9. • Realistic timeline
• Reached out to collaborators
• Befriend any and all programmers and/or data
sources!
• Update stakeholders continuously for validation

10. • Highly influenced by the CUL Print Collection
usage report
• No language analysis
• No patron analysis

11. • Initially was going to include all formats, all
resource types
–Excluded eBooks: Mostly no call numbers
–Excluded databases: Many too broad
• Study eventually focused on print monographs
and serials

13. • Reached out to our ILL Team
• Missing Call numbers!

14. • 2 primary areas where data was deleted
–Location: 143 823 records deleted
–Call number: 14 894 records deleted
• Also, ISBN deleted
• Other data points did not require any deletion
but data was corrected

15. • Distribution of our monograph collection by LC Class
• Distribution of subsets of our monograph collection
• Usage of our collection by LC Class
– Overall usage vs. YTD usage
• Age of our monograph collection by LC Class
• Usage of our collection by age
• Comparison of usage and ILL borrowing by LC Subclass

16. 0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V Z

17. 0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
B BC BD BF BH BJ BL BM BP BQ BR BS BT BV BX

18. 0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V Z
Number of Titles
Aggregated Total
Usage

19. 0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V Z
Number of Titles
Aggregated Total
Usage
Aggregated Year To
Date Usage
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V Z

20. • 889,825 total monograph items
• 425,865 titles have not circulated (48%)
• 787,590 titles circulated 5 or less times (88%)
• 861,910 titles in last year have not circulated (97%)

21. 1976
1973
1965
1967
1970
1966
1980 1980
1979
1978
1980 1980
1981
1969
1982
1985
1972
1983
1981
19731973
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V Z
Average Publication Year

22. Total Circulations Total YTD Circulations
<= 0 1 - 1 2 - 5 6 - 50
51 -
100 101+ <= 0 1 - 1 2 - 5 6 - 50
51 -
100 101+
PublicationYear
<=
1950
19% 10% 6% 3% 1% 0% 13% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0%
1951 -
1970
25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 5% 20% 8% 4% 4% 0% 0%
1971 -
1990
32% 34% 35% 35% 29% 13% 34% 20% 13% 10% 0% 0%
1991 -
2000
9% 16% 25% 39% 52% 42% 17% 24% 21% 14% 0% 33%
2001 -
2005
6% 10% 12% 11% 7% 13% 8% 17% 19% 17% 0% 0%
2006+ 10% 11% 8% 3% 6% 28% 8% 28% 41% 54% 100% 67%
Total Items 422,843 156,129 204,948 101,355 622 160 858,178 24,503 3,211 158 4 3

23. 𝑃𝐸𝑈 =
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠
𝑃𝐸𝑈 𝐵 =
1.43%
1.32%
= 1.08
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝐵 =1.32%
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐵 =1.43%
If PEU>1 Overused
If PEU<1 Underused
𝑅𝐵𝐻 =
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐼𝐿𝐿 𝐵𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐼𝐿𝐿 𝐵𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐵 = 0.79%
𝑅𝐵𝐻 𝐵 =
0.79%
1.43%
= 0.6
Mean RBH=1.54±5.18
If RBH>Mean RBH Overused
If RBH<Mean RBH Underused

24. LC
Subclass
Percent of
Holdings
Percent
Usage PEU
Holdings
Usage
Percent of ILL
Borrowing RBH ILL Usage
B 1.32% 1.43% 1.08 Overused 0.79% 0.60 Underused
BC 0.09% 0.08% 0.82 Underused 0.05% 0.51 Underused
BD 0.24% 0.20% 0.84 Underused 0.24% 1.01 Underused
BF 1.22% 1.78% 1.46 Overused 2.00% 1.64 Overused
BH 0.07% 0.09% 1.29 Overused 0.05% 0.68 Underused
BJ 0.22% 0.27% 1.21 Overused 0.18% 0.79 Underused
BL 0.42% 0.65% 1.56 Overused 0.69% 1.65 Overused
BM 0.10% 0.07% 0.67 Underused 0.09% 0.95 Underused
BP 0.13% 0.26% 1.95 Overused 0.34% 2.57 Overused
BQ 0.04% 0.10% 2.63 Overused 0.32% 8.05 Overused
BR 0.36% 0.33% 0.91 Underused 0.70% 1.96 Overused
BS 0.22% 0.16% 0.73 Underused 0.36% 1.62 Overused
BT 0.16% 0.13% 0.85 Underused 0.40% 2.53 Overused
BV 0.18% 0.15% 0.86 Underused 0.44% 2.49 Overused
BX 0.52% 0.29% 0.56 Underused 1.69% 3.23 Overused
If PEU>1 Overused
If PEU<1 Underused
If RBH>Mean RBH Overused
If RBH<Mean RBH Underused
Mean RBH=1.54±5.18

25. LC Subclass Holdings Usage ILL Usage Action
B Overused Underused No Changes
BC Underused Underused Ease Off
BD Underused Underused Ease Off
BF Overused Overused Growth Opportunity
BH Overused Underused No Changes
BJ Overused Underused No Changes
BL Overused Overused Growth Opportunity
BM Underused Underused Ease Off
BP Overused Overused Growth Opportunity
BQ Overused Overused Growth Opportunity
BR Underused Overused Change Purchasing
BS Underused Overused Change Purchasing
BT Underused Overused Change Purchasing
BV Underused Overused Change Purchasing
BX Underused Overused Change Purchasing

26. 1. Availability of expertise
– Pulling data from Sierra
– Getting interlibrary loan data
2. Availability of data
– Lack of data from cataloging records of
ebooks
– Databases
3. Data accuracy
– Data cleaning!

27. • Limit to what data are available and whether it can
be analyzed by subject
– Data excluded:
• E-books
• Government documents
• Theses/dissertations
• Microform/microfiche
• Other UH systems campuses holdings
– Factors not put into consideration
• Reserved books
• Reference books

28. • Circulation counts by subjects
• Interlibrary loan requests distribution by
subjects
Identified the gap at the macro-level
• Item counts of the print monographs
1. Collection count
2. Subject distribution
3. Age of collection by Subject

30. Serials collection
Monographs
Serials
Warning: Proportion in the image
doesn’t reflect UH holdings

31. • Looking into collection at a more granular level
Photo credit: Rick Diffley Photography
http://www.rickdiffleyphotography.com/2012/05/06/word-press-weekly-photo-challenge-unfocused-2/

32. B: Philosophy Underused
BC: Logic Underused
BD: Speculative philosophy Underused
BF: Psychology Overused
BH: Aesthetics
Underused
BJ: Ethics Underused
BL: Religion. Mythology.
Rationalism Overused
BM: Judaism Underused
BP: Islam. Bahai Faith. Theosophy
etc. Overused
BQ: Buddhism Overused
BR: Christianity Overused
BS: The Bible Overused
BT: Doctrinal Theology Overused
BV: Practical Theology Overused
BX: Christian Denominations Overused
Collection proportionally overused and
demands a lot of ILL Support
Collection proportionally Underused with
little outside demand
Existing collection underused but has overuse
of ILL
ILL underused, but what we have is used
heavily

33. Aguilar, W. (1986). The application of relative use and interlibrary demand in collection
development. Collection Management, 8(1), 15-24.
Knievel, J. E., Wicht, H., & Connaway, L. S. (2006). Use of circulation statistics and
interlibrary loan data in collection management. College & Research Libraries, 67(1), 35-49..
John N. Ochola PhD (2003) Use of circulation statistics and
Interlibrary loan data in collection management, Collection Management, 27:1, 1-
13,DOI:10.1300/J105v27n01_01
Mills, Terry R. (1982). The University of Illinois Film Center Collection Use Study.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED227821.pdf
"Report of the Collection Development Executive Committee Task Force on Print
Collection Usage." (2012).Cornell University Library,
http://staffweb.edu/system/files/CollectionUsageTF_ReportFinal11-22-10.pdf