User satisfaction with electronic reference: a systematic review

Purpose – The paper aims to systematically review research that analyzes satisfaction with electronic reference services, paying particular attention to how user satisfaction is measured. The application and value of evidence‐based methodologies for library and information science (LIS) research are explored.Design/methodology/approach – Database searches identified research concerned with electronic reference. Articles with a variable of user satisfaction were extracted and subjected to a critical appraisal. The remaining research was analyzed for similarities, differences, and consistency.Findings – A wide variety of methods are used to measure user satisfaction. There was almost no overlap in specific questions considered although there were some similarities in methodologies used. The results of this analysis show a lack of standardization in LIS research on this topic.Research limitations/implications – There may be some bias in the selection of research in that the reviewers were only able to obtain...

[1]  Yin Zhang,et al.  An evaluative case study of a real-time online reference service , 2003, Electron. Libr..

[2]  Theophile Niyonsenga,et al.  Measures of library use and user satisfaction with academic library services , 1996 .

[3]  Matthew L. Saxton,et al.  Reference Service Evaluation and Meta-Analysis: Findings and Methodological Issues , 1997, The Library Quarterly.

[4]  Trisha Greenhalgh,et al.  How to read a paper: Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research) , 1997 .

[5]  K. Shojania,et al.  Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[6]  Kelly Broughton.  Usage and User Analysis of a Real-Time Digital Reference Service , 2002 .

[7]  Lisa Lott Jerant,et al.  Not Virtual, but a Real, Live, Online, Interactive Reference Service , 2003, Medical reference services quarterly.

[8]  Nahyun Kwon,et al.  Public library patrons' use of collaborative chat reference service : The effectiveness of question answering by question type , 2007 .

[9]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 1999, The Lancet.

[10]  M. Grant.  The role of reflection in the library and information sector: a systematic review. , 2007, Health information and libraries journal.

[11]  Rowena Cullen,et al.  Perspectives on User Satisfaction Surveys , 2001, Libr. Trends.

[12]  Li Zhang,et al.  The Efficacy of Computer-Assisted Instruction versus Face-to-Face Instruction in Academic Libraries: A Systematic Review , 2007 .

[13]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the Quality of Reports of Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: The QUOROM Statement , 2000, Oncology Research and Treatment.

[14]  A. Booth,et al.  Why evidence-based information practice? , 2004 .

[15]  N. Black,et al.  The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. , 1998, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[16]  S. Grefsheim,et al.  The emerging informationist specialty: a systematic review of the literature. , 2008, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[17]  A. Booth.  Who will appraise the appraisers?--The paper, the instrument and the user. , 2007, Health information and libraries journal.

[18]  Rosie Croft,et al.  E-mail Reference in a Distributed Learning Environment , 2006 .

[19]  Catherine Sheldrick Ross,et al.  Evaluating Virtual Reference from the Users’ Perspective , 2006 .

[20]  Nahyun Kwon,et al.  User satisfaction with referrals at a collaborative virtual reference service , 2006, Inf. Res..

[21]  Alison Brettle,et al.  Information skills training: a systematic review of the literature. , 2003, Health information and libraries journal.

[22]  K. Ann McKibbon,et al.  Systematic Reviews and Librarians , 2006, Libr. Trends.

[23]  T. Greenhalgh,et al.  Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research) , 1997, BMJ.

[24]  Kirsti Nilsen,et al.  The Library Visit Study: user experiences at the virtual reference desk , 2003, Inf. Res..

[25]  J. Eldredge.  Evidence-based librarianship: what might we expect in the years ahead? , 2002, Health information and libraries journal.

[26]  N. Wiebe,et al.  Effective Methods for Teaching Information Literacy Skills to Undergraduate Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis , 2006 .

[27]  Stephanie J. Graves,et al.  Cyberspace or Face-to-Face: The Teachable Moment and Changing Reference Mediums , 2008 .

[28]  Susan Arlene Ware,et al.  Ask a Penn State Librarian, Live , 2002 .

[29]  R. David Lankes.  Digital Reference Research: Fusing Research and Practice , 2004 .

[30]  Hye Rhan Chang,et al.  User Satisfaction Survey of Ask-A-Question Service at the Internet Public Library , 2005 .

[31]  Matthew L. Saxton,et al.  Meta-Analysis in Library and Information Science: Method, History, and Recommendations for Reporting Research , 2006, Libr. Trends.

[32]  Joanne B. Smyth,et al.  Comparing Virtual Reference Exit Survey Results and Transcript Analysis , 2006 .

[33]  Lindsay Glynn,et al.  A critical appraisal tool for library and information research , 2006, Libr. Hi Tech.

[34]  Bruce Stoffel,et al.  E‐mail and chat reference: assessing patron satisfaction , 2004 .

[35]  Daniel G. Kipnis Msi,et al.  Analysis and Lessons Learned Instituting an Instant Messaging Reference Service at an Academic Health Sciences Library , 2009 .

[36]  A. Weightman,et al.  The value and impact of information provided through library services for patient care: a systematic review. , 2005, Health information and libraries journal.

[37]  C. Beverley,et al.  Clinical librarianship: a systematic review of the literature. , 2003, Health information and libraries journal.

[38]  Kirsti Nilsen.  Comparing users' perspectives of in‐person and virtual reference , 2006 .

[39]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto.  Evaluating Reference Transactions in Academic Music Libraries , 2008 .

[40]  Andrew Booth.  What research studies do practitioners actually find useful? , 2004, Health information and libraries journal.

[41]  Kalyani Ankem,et al.  Evaluation of method in systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in LIS , 2008 .

[42]  Jack M. Maness.  A Linguistic Analysis of Chat Reference Conversations with 18–24 Year-Old College Students , 2008 .

[43]  Pnina Shachaf,et al.  Virtual reference service evaluation: Adherence to RUSA behavioral guidelines and IFLA digital reference guidelines , 2008 .

[44]  Leanne M. Vandecreek.  E-Mail Reference Evaluation , 2006 .

[45]  Jody Condit Fagan,et al.  Instant messaging reference: users’ evaluation of library chat , 2002 .

[46]  Nahyun Kwon,et al.  The Effects of Librarians' Behavioral Performance on User Satisfaction in Chat Reference Services , 2007 .

[47]  Daniel G Kipnis,et al.  Analysis and Lessons Learned Instituting an Instant Messaging Reference Service at an Academic Health Sciences Library , 2008, Medical reference services quarterly.

[48]  R. David Lankes,et al.  The necessity of real-time: Fact and fiction in digital reference systems , 2002 .

[49]  Danianne Mizzy,et al.  Exploring the Synchronous Digital Reference Interaction for Query Types, Question Negotiation, and Patron Response , 2003 .

[50]  Syed Saad Andaleeb,et al.  Explaining User Satisfaction with Academic Libraries: Strategic Implications , 1998 .

[51]  Fran Wilson,et al.  AskNow!—Evaluating an Australian Collaborative Chat Reference Service: A Project Manager's Perspective , 2004 .

[52]  Cynthia M. Lyles,et al.  Developing a Comprehensive Search Strategy for Evidence Based Systematic Reviews , 2008 .