An empirical study of collection assessment based on the quality–utility–value theory

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to build a more scientific and refined collection assessment indicator system and examine the state of the collections, and adjusting collection development planning.

Design/methodology/approach

To analyze the weaknesses in the current assessment indicator system, advance the quality–utility–value Theory of collection assessment, introduce the advantages of the theory, use it to construct a collection assessment indicator system and clarify the content of each assessment indicator.

Findings

Empirical analysis of the foreign language collection of the National Library of China verified the scientific nature and feasibility of the assessment indicator system based on the quality–utility–value Theory.

Research limitations/implications

The indicator system should be more detailed according to the needs, and the scoring standard can be clearer.

Practical implications

According to the quality–utility–value Theory or based on such an assessment indicator system, libraries can build an indicator system related to their own libraries.

Social implications

Building a good collection assessment, it is very important In today’s library tight funds, after the outbreak of COVID-19. With the value dimension, the collection assessment of the library is more objective, comprehensive and three-dimensional.

Originality/value

This paper considers how to construct a collection assessment indicator system with the new theory, the quality–utility–value Theory; it is three-dimensional. Well, the collection value is not clearly measured and expressed in the indicator system before. Using this theory, this paper makes an empirical study on the evaluation of the foreign language collection of the National Library of China.

Citation

Ping, A. (2022), "An empirical study of collection assessment based on the quality–utility–value theory", Library Management, Vol. 43 No. 6/7, pp. 415-426. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-01-2022-0004