Tests of methods for evaluating bibliographic databases: an analysis of the National Library of Medicine's handling of literatures in the medical behavioral sciences.

This article reports on five separate studies designed for the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to develop and test methodologies for evaluating the products of large databases. The methodologies were tested on literatures of the medical behavioral sciences (MBS). One of these studies examined how well NLM covered MBS monographic literature using CATLINE and OCLC. Another examined MBS journal and serial literature coverage in MEDLINE and other MBS-related databases available through DIALOG. These two studies used 1010 items derived from the reference lists of sixty-one journals, and tested for gaps and overlaps in coverage in the various databases. A third study examined the quality of the indexing NLM provides to MBS literatures and developed a measure of indexing as a system component. The final two studies explored how well MEDLINE retrieved documents on topics submitted by MBS professionals and how online searchers viewed MEDLINE (and other systems and databases) in handling MBS topics. The five studies yielded both broad research outcomes and specific recommendations to NLM.

Specialized reference works and their users. A preliminary study.

An examination of the use of three specialized reference works was made to identify users of the reference tools and the benefits from their use. The feasibility of locating and interviewing users was tested, and an attempt was made to determine the situations in which the works are used. Methods of locating users are described. Users were interviewed to determine the value of each work and alternative sources of information. The works were compared with alternative sources to test their comprehensiveness. Conclusions are: (1) identification of users and their needs is complex, and requires the combination of a number of research methods; (2) the availability and accessibility of alternate information sources varies with both the reference work and the type of user.