Academic
A 1972 survey of chief library administrators in public comprehensive community colleges (population: 586; unusable responses: 75.9% [no raw number given]) showed that56.4% of the respondents reported their holdings organized according to Library of Congress classification and 42.9% reported Dewey Decimal. Audiovisual materials were often reported as organized by many different local schemes, although 22.5% of the respondents reported using LC classification and 21.5% reported using Dewey Decimal. (Source)
A 1979 survey of U.S. community college libraries selected from the 1978 Community, Junior and Technical College Directory (sample size: 98; responding: 52; usuable: 48 or 48.98%) showed thatfor audiovisual materials (multiple systems used in some cases) 13 (25.00%) libraries used Dewey Decimal classification, 11 (21.15%) libraries used Library of Congress classification, 10 (19.23%) libraries used accession number schemes, 14 (26.92%) libraries used format and accession number schemes, and 4 (7.69%) used some other scheme. (Source)
Ibid…. showed thatfor monographs 6 (12.24%) libraries used Sears for their subject heading list, while 43 (87.76%) libraries used Library of Congress. For audiovisual materials, 6 (12.24%) used Sears for their subject heading list, 41 (83.67%) used LC, and 2 (4.08%) used some other subject heading authority. (One library reported using both Sears and LC, so the totals equal 49 rather than 48.) (Source)
Ibid…. showed thatfor audiovisual materials:
24 (50.0%) libraries did full cataloging and interfiled entries in the central catalog;
8 (16.7%) libraries did full cataloging but filed audiovisual entries in a separate catalog;
1 (2.1%) library did full cataloging and filed audiovisual entries in separate drawers of the central catalog;
6 (12.5%) libraries did full cataloging but filed audiovisual entries in a separate catalog in the AV center;
9 (18.8%) libraries did full cataloging and filed audiovisual entries both in the central catalog and in a separate catalog in the AV center. (Source)
Ibid…. showed thatthe number of audiovisual materials added monthly to the collection was as follows:
0-100 31 (64.60%) libraries
500+ 1 (2.08%) libraries
not recorded/not answered 16 (33.33%) libraries (Source)
A 1979 survey of academic libraries listed in the 1979 edition of OCLC Participating Libraries Arranged by Network and Institution (survey size: 200 libraries; responding: 166 or 83%) showed that164 (98.8%) respondents reported using OCLC to produce catalog cards. Further, of 163 respondents, 73 (44.8%) reported use of another card production system as well. The 3 most common additional methods used were (in descending order of importance): use of a photocopier (37 libraries), typing complete card sets (17 libraries), and purchasing commercially available cards, including Library of Congress cards (15 libraries). (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 71 respondents, non-OCLC card production systems were used to produce cards for the following 3 most frequently mentioned types of materials (multiple responses allowed):
audiovisual 22 (31.0%) libraries
non-Roman alphabet texts 17 (23.9%) libraries
local ephemera (including student theses and papers) 15 (21.1%) libraries
Further, the number of titles per year for which cards were produced using an alternate (to OCLC) system, based on responses from 67 libraries, ranged from 10 titles to 31,200 titles with a median of 450 titles per year. (Source)
Public
A 1981-82 study of media cataloging practices in 932 public libraries (responding: 466 or 50%; usable: 488 or 48%) across the U.S. serving communities of all sizes showed that83% catalog their nonprint holdings. A further 21 (4.7%) reported that they cataloged part of their nonprint holdings. (Source)
Ibid…. showed that46% of responding libraries were using AACR 2 for nonprint cataloging (compared to 57% using AACR 2 for print materials). Of those not using AACR 2 for cataloging, 54% reported no plans for adopting it for printed materials, and 71% reported no plans for adopting it for nonprint use. (Source)
Ibid…. showed thatalthough 96+% of respondents used Dewey classification for print materials, only about one-third used it for nonprint materials. (Source)
Special
A survey reported in 1983 of Medical Library Association institutional members concerning their use of audiovisual materials (survey size: 300; responding: 201; usable: 198 or 66%) showed that, of 143 respondents (91 hospital, 29 medical school, and 13 “other” libraries) that did provide AV services, 90% of the hospital libraries, 88% of the medical school libraries, and 55% of the other libraries reported using MeSH subject headings. (Source)
