Hendrix Dean, Hasman Linda
Health Sciences Library, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14214, USA.
J Med Libr Assoc. 2008 Jul;96(3):207-16. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.96.3.006.
The research sought to ascertain medical and dental libraries' collection development policies, evaluation methods, purchase decisions, and issues that relate to print and electronic United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) and National Board Dental Examination (NBDE) preparation materials.
The investigators surveyed librarians supporting American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC)-accredited medical schools (n = 58/125) on the USMLE and librarians supporting American Dental Association (ADA)-accredited dental schools (n = 23/56) on the NBDE. The investigators analyzed the data by cross-tabulating and filtering the results using EFM Continuum web survey software. Investigators also surveyed print and electronic USMLE and NBDE preparation materials from 2004-2007 to determine the number of publications and existence of reviews.
A majority of responding AAMC libraries (62%, n = 58) provide at least 1 electronic or online USMLE preparation resource and buy an average of 11.6 print USMLE titles annually. Due to a paucity of NBDE print and electronic resources, ADA libraries bought significantly fewer print resources, and only 1 subscribed to an electronic resource. The most often reported evaluation methods for both populations were feedback from medical or dental students, feedback from medical or dental faculty, and online trials. Some AAMC (10%, n = 58) and ADA libraries (39%, n = 23) libraries reported that no evaluation of these materials occured at their libraries.
From 2004-2007, publishers produced 45 USMLE preparation resources (total n = 546) to every 1 NBDE preparation resource (total n = 12). Users' needs, institutional missions and goals, financial status, and official collection policies most often underlie decisions to collect or not collect examination preparation materials. Evaluating the quality of examination preparation materials can be problematic due to lack of published reviews, lack of usability testing by libraries, and librarians' and library users' unfamiliarity with the actual content of examinations. Libraries must integrate faculty and students into the purchase process to make sure examination preparation resources of the highest quality are purchased.
本研究旨在确定医学和牙科图书馆的馆藏发展政策、评估方法、采购决策,以及与美国医师执照考试(USMLE)和美国国家牙科考试(NBDE)的纸质和电子备考资料相关的问题。
研究人员对支持美国医学院协会(AAMC)认证医学院(n = 58/125)的图书馆员进行了关于USMLE的调查,并对支持美国牙科协会(ADA)认证牙科学院(n = 23/56)的图书馆员进行了关于NBDE的调查。研究人员使用EFM Continuum网络调查软件对结果进行交叉制表和筛选来分析数据。研究人员还调查了2004年至2007年的纸质和电子USMLE及NBDE备考资料,以确定出版物数量和是否存在相关评论。
大多数做出回应的AAMC图书馆(62%,n = 58)至少提供1种电子或在线USMLE备考资源,每年平均购买11.6种纸质USMLE书籍。由于NBDE的纸质和电子资源匮乏,ADA图书馆购买的纸质资源明显较少,只有1家订阅了电子资源。这两类图书馆最常报告的评估方法是来自医学或牙科学生的反馈、来自医学或牙科教师的反馈以及在线试用。一些AAMC图书馆(10%,n = 58)和ADA图书馆(39%,n = 23)报告称,其图书馆未对这些资料进行评估。
2004年至2007年期间,出版商每出版1种NBDE备考资料(总计n = 12),就会出版45种USMLE备考资料(总计n = 546)。用户需求、机构使命和目标、财务状况以及官方馆藏政策通常是决定是否收藏备考资料的基础。由于缺乏已发表的评论、图书馆未进行可用性测试以及图书馆员和图书馆用户对考试实际内容不熟悉,请评估备考资料的质量可能会存在问题。图书馆必须让教师和学生参与采购过程,以确保购买到质量最高的备考资源。