From: "Matthew R. Marsteller" <matthewm_at_andrew.cmu.edu>
White's test almost had me convinced. Then, unfortunately (for Physics and
Math), his last step reordered the items chosen by subject experts by OCLC
holdings counts. This wound up putting a basic physics textbook in the test
for a comprehensive collection -- the reason so few libraries had it
cataloged is that they had a policy of not purchasing textbooks. Other
title drifts in the final step disturbed me as well. I don't know how this
last step of the test affected other disciplines, but it didn't really work
all that well from my vantage point.
However, with all that being said, it's good to see the interest in the
book again. With minor tweaks, I think there's something there. You may
wish to read a recently published article by Thomas M. Twiss of the
University of Pittsburgh entitled "A Validation of Brief Tests of
Collection Strength." It's in Collection Management, Vol. 25 (3) 2001,
pages 23 - 35.
Matt Marsteller
Matthew R. Marsteller
Physics and Math Librarian
Engineering and Science Library
4400 Wean Hall
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Phone: 412-268-7212
E-Mail: matthewm_at_andrew.cmu.edu
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~matthewm/mrmwork.html
Received on Wed Nov 07 2001 - 10:32:00 EST