General
A 1963 study of 501 searches in the card catalog of the Yale Medical library during 1 working week in Fall 1963 (a historically busy period) showed that, of 501 searches, 64 or 12.8% were subject searches. (Source)
A 1967 study comparing a dictionary catalog at 1 university with a divided catalog (author/title and subject) at another university by using undergraduates to search entries showed thatthere was no statistically significant difference in average success rates between the 2 catalogs in subject searching or known-item searching. (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 comparison of the average number of subject headings assigned 500 items each in 1973 in Research in Education, Current Index To Journals in Education, and the National Union Catalog: Authors showed thatthere was greater subject access via the indexes with an average of 4.9, 4.5, and 1.3 subject headings per item, respectively. (Source)
Academic
A survey reported in 1969 of medical school and selected medical research libraries (survey size: 102 libraries; responding: 92 or 90%) showed thatthe subject heading authority used by the 54 libraries with divided catalogs was as follows: MeSH, exclusively or in combination with LC subject headings (41 or 75.9% libraries); LC subject headings exclusively (9 or 16.7% libraries); and other (2 or 3.7% libraries). (Source)
A 1975 survey of North American medical school libraries concerning subject cataloging practices (survey size: 134 libraries; responding: 114 or 85%) showed thatthe type of subject authority used was as follows:
MeSH exclusively 30 (26%) libraries
MeSH supplemented by LC 57 (50%) libraries
LC exclusively 23 (20%) libraries
LC supplemented by MeSH 2 (2%) libraries
no response 2 (2%) libraries (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 77 (99%) reported using MeSH subheadings in the catalog (1 or 1% reported they did not) and 76 (99% of the 77) reported using both form and topical subheadings, while 1 (1% of the 77) reported using topical subheadings only. (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, the following use of guidecards for subheadings was reported:
all subheadings 54 (69%) libraries
topical subheadings 0 libraries
form subheadings 2 (3%) libraries
no guidecards used for subheadings 17 (22%) libraries
no response 5 (6%) libraries (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 14 (18%) reported that they distinguished between form and topical subheading guidecards in a physical way in the catalog, while 62 (79%) reported they did not, and 2 (3%) did not respond. Of those that did distinguish, the following methods were used: cut of tab on card (10 respondents), color of tab (8 respondents), and color of type (1 respondent). (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, the following methods were used to subdivide main subject headings in the catalog into topical and form categories:
combined and interfiled alphabetically 70 (90%) libraries
all form subheadings first, then topical subheadings 5 (6%) libraries
all topical subheadings first, then form subheadings 1 (1%) libraries
no response 2 (3%) libraries (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 63 (81%) respondents reported they modified subject headings by combining several subheadings, while 15 (19%) reported they did not. Of those that did combine subheadings, the maximum number combined was as follows:
2 subheadings 8 respondents
3 subheadings 33 respondents
4 subheadings 15 respondents
5 subheadings 2 respondents
no policy or no limit 5 respondents (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, language and geographic subheadings were considered by respondents to be the following:
form subheadings 11 (14%) libraries
topical subheadings 4 (5%) libraries
do not distinguish 60 (77%) libraries
no response 3 (4%) libraries (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 65 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 18 (27.7%) reported that if language and geographic subheadings were combined with form subheadings the first filing term would be the language/geographic term (e.g., French—Dictionaries), while 47 (72.3%) reported that the order would be reversed. (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 62 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 56 (90.3%) reported that if language and geographic subheadings were combined with topical subheadings the first filing term would be the topical term followed by the language/geographic term (e.g., Manpower—France), while 6 (9.7%) reported that the order would be reversed. (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 56 (72%) respondents reported updating the subject catalog and authority file annually to correspond to the new MeSH, 20 (26%) reported “other,” and 2 (2%) did not respond. (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, the following methods were used to update the catalog (multiple responses allowed):
56 (71.8%) reported “changing or shifting subject cards from the old headings to the new and pulling deleted MeSH terms”;
8 (10.3%) reported “making no changes in the existing catalog but making cross references from old to new terms”;
15 (19.2%) reported “other method”;
2 (2.6%) gave no response. (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 54 (69%) reported they used a guidecard to distinguish subject headings filed in the subject section of the catalog, while 24 (31%) reported they did not. (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 76 (97%) reported they did not file MeSH terms in the public catalog unless there were catalog cards for them, while 2 (3%) reported they filed all MeSH terms regardless of whether there were cards for that heading. (Source)
Special
A survey reported in 1969 of medical school and selected medical research libraries (survey size: 102 libraries; responding: 92 or 90%) showed thatthe subject heading authority used by the 54 libraries with divided catalogs was as follows: MeSH, exclusively or in combination with LC subject headings (41 or 75.9% libraries); LC subject headings exclusively (9 or 16.7% libraries); and other (2 or 3.7% libraries). (Source)
A 1975 survey of North American medical school libraries concerning subject cataloging practices (survey size: 134 libraries; responding: 114 or 85%) showed thatthe type of subject authority used was as follows:
MeSH exclusively 30 (26%) libraries
MeSH supplemented by LC 57 (50%) libraries
LC exclusively 23 (20%) libraries
LC supplemented by MeSH 2 (2%) libraries
no response 2 (2%) libraries (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 77 (99%) reported using MeSH subheadings in the catalog (1 or 1% reported they did not) and 76 (99% of the 77) reported using both form and topical subheadings, while 1 (1% of the 77) reported using topical subheadings only. (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, the following use of guidecards for subheadings was reported:
all subheadings 54 (69%) libraries
topical subheadings 0 libraries
form subheadings 2 (3%) libraries
no guidecards used for subheadings 17 (22%) libraries
no response 5 (6%) libraries (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 14 (18%) reported that they distinguished between form and topical subheading guidecards in a physical way in the catalog, while 62 (79%) reported they did not, and 2 (3%) did not respond. Of those that did distinguish, the following methods were used: cut of tab on card (10 respondents), color of tab (8 respondents), and color of type (1 respondent). (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, the following methods were used to subdivide main subject headings in the catalog into topical and form categories:
combined and interfiled alphabetically 70 (90%) libraries
all form subheadings first, then topical subheadings 5 (6%) libraries
all topical subheadings first, then form subheadings 1 (1%) libraries
no response 2 (3%) libraries (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 63 (81%) respondents reported they modified subject headings by combining several subheadings, while 15 (19%) reported they did not. Of those that did combine subheadings, the maximum number combined was as follows:
2 subheadings 8 respondents
3 subheadings 33 respondents
4 subheadings 15 respondents
5 subheadings 2 respondents
no policy or no limit 5 respondents (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, language and geographic subheadings were considered by respondents to be the following:
form subheadings 11 (14%) libraries
topical subheadings 4 (5%) libraries
do not distinguish 60 (77%) libraries
no response 3 (4%) libraries (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 65 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 18 (27.7%) reported that if language and geographic subheadings were combined with form subheadings the first filing term would be the language/geographic term (e.g., French—Dictionaries), while 47 (72.3%) reported that the order would be reversed. (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 62 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 56 (90.3%) reported that if language and geographic subheadings were combined with topical subheadings the first filing term would be the topical term followed by the language/geographic term (e.g., Manpower—France), while 6 (9.7%) reported that the order would be reversed. (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 56 (72%) respondents reported updating the subject catalog and authority file annually to correspond to the new MeSH, 20 (26%) reported “other,” and 2 (2%) did not respond. (Source)
Ibid…. showed thatof 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, the following methods were used to update the catalog (multiple responses allowed):
56 (71.8%) reported “changing or shifting subject cards from the old headings to the new and pulling deleted MeSH terms”;
8 (10.3%) reported “making no changes in the existing catalog but making cross references from old to new terms”;
15 (19.2%) reported “other method”;
2 (2.6%) gave no response. (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 54 (69%) reported they used a guidecard to distinguish subject headings filed in the subject section of the catalog, while 24 (31%) reported they did not. (Source)
Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 76 (97%) reported they did not file MeSH terms in the public catalog unless there were catalog cards for them, while 2 (3%) reported they filed all MeSH terms regardless of whether there were cards for that heading. (Source)
