General

A survey reported in 1982 of Canadian libraries selected from the CLA Directory and its supplement (sample size: 203; responding: 85; usable: 69 or 34.0%) concerning implementation of AACR 2 showed that, of the 53 libraries who adopted AACR 2, 77% reported they would interfile the AACR 2 entries in their old catalogs, 7 [%] reported they would freeze their catalogs, and 9% reported they would close their catalogs.                         (Source)

Academic

A 1959 study at the Flint College of the University of Michigan Library and the Flint Community Junior College Library involving the costs of a divided catalog (university catalog held 25,000 volumes and 79,000 cards; community college catalog held 29,000 volumes and 76,000 cards) showed that, based on filing 2,580 cards in the university catalog and 7,740 cards in the community college catalog, it was considerably cheaper to alphabetize, file, and revise in the divided catalog than in the dictionary catalog. Specifically, the total savings in time ranged between 39% for the community college and 45% for the university library.                       (Source)

A survey of 12 university libraries (11 responding) during a 3-month period in 1965 and a survey of 11 public libraries during a similar period in 1967 to determine the kinds of reference assistance needed at the card catalog (647 problems reported with 284 from university libraries and 363 from public libraries), reported together in 1968, showed thatthe 3 most frequent problems with the card catalog in university libraries were subject headings (18% of university total), filing arrangement (17% of university total), and “see” or “see also” references (15% of the university total). In public libraries the 3 most frequent problems were filing arrangement (23% of public total), call number (15% of public total), and subject headings (13% of public total).               (Source)

A study reported in 1970 at the University of Michigan, involving alphabetizing and filing National Union Catalog cards into the National Union Catalog (14 groups ranging from 600 cards per group to 2,275 cards per group alphabetized forwards, i.e.. alphabetized into 26 groups on the basis of the first letter, then each of those groups alphabetized into 26 groups based on the second letter, etc., and 3 groups ranging from 601 to 1,274 cards per group alphabetized by a backwards sort, i.e., alphabetized into 26 subgroups on the basis of a letter 3 or 4 letters to the right of the first letter and then sorted into further subgroups by resorting on letters increasingly close to the beginning of the word), showed thatwhen combined with filing, forwards sorting was more efficient than backwards sorting. Specifically, based on optimal sorting and filing sized groups (1,037 cards), the forward-sorted and filed cards took an average of .37 minutes to sort and file, while the backward-sorted groups took an average in excess of .4 minutes per card to sort and file.                        (Source)

A study reported in 1972 of the author/title section of the card catalog in the Norlin Library of the University of Colorado (population: 1,000,000 cards; sample size: 2,500 cards) showed thatthere was a filing error in the sample of 1.1%. 52% of the errors were due to lack of knowledge of the filing rules, and 48% were mechanical or simple alphabetical mistakes.                         (Source)

In 1976 the UBC Library (British Columbia) reported that time studies showed thatit took an hour to file 100 author/title cards and half an hour to file 100 classed or subject file cards.               (Source)

A 1977 survey of U.S. law libraries over 10,000 volumes taken from the 1976 Directory of Law Libraries (sample size: 1,080; responding: 373 or 35%) showed that, of 123 academic law libraries and 250 remaining law libraries. 989? of the academic law libraries and 669£ of the remaining law libraries reported using the Anglo-American Cataloging rules, while 78% of the academic law libraries and 61% of the remaining law libraries reported using the ALA filing rules.                (Source)

Public

A survey of 12 university libraries (II responding) during a 3-month period in 1965 and a survey of 11 public libraries during a similar period in 1967 to determine the kinds of reference assistance needed at the card catalog (647 problems reported with 284 from university libraries and 363 from public libraries), reported together in 1968, showed thatthe 3 most frequent problems with the card catalog in university libraries were subject headings (18% of university total), filing arrangement (17% of university total), and “see” or “see also” references (15% of the university total). In public libraries the 3 most frequent problems were filing arrangement (23% of public total), call number (15% of public total), and subject headings (13% of public total).                     (Source)

Special

A 1977 survey of U.S. law libraries over 10,000 volumes taken from the 1976 Directory of Law Libraries (sample size: 1,080; responding: 373 or 35%) showed that, of 123 academic law libraries and 250 remaining law libraries, 98% of the academic law libraries and 66% of the remaining law libraries reported using the Anglo-American Cataloging rules, while 78% of the academic law libraries and 61% of the remaining law libraries reported using the ALA filing rules.                   (Source)

 

Dr. David Kohl

 "Libraries in the digital age are experiencing the most profound transformation since ancient Mesopotamian scribes first began gathering and organizing cuneiform tablets."

Go to top