General
A 1979 study comparing lookup time of the same catalog (Anoka County Library, Minnesota, with a collection size of 110,000 titles with almost 500,000 entries) in fiche format (using a nmi-90 fiche reader) vs. microfilm format (ROM 3 mechanized reader) showed that an arbitrarily selected group of 36 UC Berkeley patrons (an additional 3 did not complete enough of the lookups to be included) carrying out 252 trials revealed that the fiche catalog required an average of 7.6% longer lookup time. A lookup task that would take 20 minutes using a ROM film reader would take 21 to 22 minutes in a fiche reader. (Source)
Ibid…. showed that40 library staff at UC Berkeley carrying out 240 trials revealed that the fiche catalog required on average a 5.7% longer lookup time. (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 39 respondents in the patron group and 31 respondents in the library staff group, 10 (26%) of the patron group favored the fiche reader vs. 14 (45%) of the library staff group, 10 (26%) of the patron group had no preference vs. 1 (3%) of the library staff group, and 19 (49%) of the patron group favored the ROM vs. 16 (52%) of the library staff group. (Source)
A study reported in 1981 at San Jose State University Library comparing graduate library school students’ lookup speeds of 16 entries (3 author, 8 title/added entries, and 5 subject entries) in fiche vs. microfilm forms of a dictionary public library catalog with 436,791 entries (using a Micro-Desing 4020 fiche reader and an Information Design ROM 3 film reader) showed thatthe average speed of the film users was 16.7 minutes compared to 25.3 minutes for the fiche users. (This was a statistically significant difference at the .01 level.) (Source)
