COMPARATIVE RESULTS OF 2 CURRENT PERIODICAL USE STUDIES

When two current periodical use studies were conducted only four years apart in the Science and Engineering Library at the University at Buf falo, the opportunity arose to make a detailed comparison of results o btained by two different methodologies; one was a reshelving study, th e other required users to self-report their use of materials. During t he second study, there was concern that users would ignore instruction s and either not report use or indicate repeated uses where none had t aken place. Final tallies showed that high-use current science periodi cals had 40% higher use when monitored by shelver pick-up than by user self-report; overall use in the physical sciences appeared to have dr opped under the latter method for a group of 700-plus titles, while us e in the life and environmental sciences increased, possibly due to ne w interdisciplinary programs. The entire collection of journals curren tly received during both studies had 18% less use when self-reported t han when reshelved by library staff, indicating that while over-report ing of favorite titles might take place, it cannot compensate for patr on indifference to producing a record of a wide range of use both at t he shelf and away. Use study researchers who are trying to identify lo w use journals need to be aware that this methodology, though cost-eff ective, might provide results where a considerable portion of use goes unrecorded.