图书馆员和研究人员对搜索结果相关性的评估:他们的一致性有多好?

Q1 Social Sciences
Nancy Schaefer, Jane Morgan-Daniel, Linda R Struckmeyer, Christine T Myers, L King, Mary Jeghers, S Medhizadah, J Beneciuk
{"title":"图书馆员和研究人员对搜索结果相关性的评估:他们的一致性有多好?","authors":"Nancy Schaefer,&nbsp;Jane Morgan-Daniel,&nbsp;Linda R Struckmeyer,&nbsp;Christine T Myers,&nbsp;L King,&nbsp;Mary Jeghers,&nbsp;S Medhizadah,&nbsp;J Beneciuk","doi":"10.1080/02763869.2023.2193122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Conducting comprehensive but efficient literature searches for complex evidence syntheses involves selecting databases that will retrieve the greatest number of relevant results on the question. Lack of a comprehensive single database on allied health educational topics challenges those seeking such literature. In this study, six participants contributed research questions on instructional methods and materials for allied health patients, caregivers, and future health professionals. Two health sciences librarians created search strategies for these questions and searched eleven databases. Both the librarians and the six participants evaluated the search results using a rubric based on PICO to assess extent of alignment between the librarians' and requestors' relevance judgments. Intervention, Outcome, and Assessment Method constituted the most frequent bases for assessments of relevance by both librarians and participants. The librarians were more restrictive in all of their assessments except in a preliminary search yielding twelve citations without abstracts. The study's results could be used to identify effective techniques for reference interviewing, selecting databases, and weeding search results.</p>","PeriodicalId":39720,"journal":{"name":"Medical Reference Services Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Librarian and Researcher Assessments of Search Result Relevance: How Well Do They Align?\",\"authors\":\"Nancy Schaefer,&nbsp;Jane Morgan-Daniel,&nbsp;Linda R Struckmeyer,&nbsp;Christine T Myers,&nbsp;L King,&nbsp;Mary Jeghers,&nbsp;S Medhizadah,&nbsp;J Beneciuk\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02763869.2023.2193122\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Conducting comprehensive but efficient literature searches for complex evidence syntheses involves selecting databases that will retrieve the greatest number of relevant results on the question. Lack of a comprehensive single database on allied health educational topics challenges those seeking such literature. In this study, six participants contributed research questions on instructional methods and materials for allied health patients, caregivers, and future health professionals. Two health sciences librarians created search strategies for these questions and searched eleven databases. Both the librarians and the six participants evaluated the search results using a rubric based on PICO to assess extent of alignment between the librarians' and requestors' relevance judgments. Intervention, Outcome, and Assessment Method constituted the most frequent bases for assessments of relevance by both librarians and participants. The librarians were more restrictive in all of their assessments except in a preliminary search yielding twelve citations without abstracts. The study's results could be used to identify effective techniques for reference interviewing, selecting databases, and weeding search results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39720,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Reference Services Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Reference Services Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2023.2193122\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Reference Services Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2023.2193122","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

对复杂的证据综合进行全面而有效的文献检索,包括选择能够检索到与该问题相关结果最多的数据库。缺乏一个综合的单一数据库的联合健康教育主题挑战那些寻求这样的文献。在这项研究中,六名参与者就联合医疗患者、护理人员和未来医疗专业人员的教学方法和材料提出了研究问题。两位健康科学图书管理员为这些问题制定了搜索策略,并搜索了11个数据库。图书馆员和六个参与者都使用基于PICO的规则来评估搜索结果,以评估图书馆员和请求者的相关性判断之间的一致性程度。干预、结果和评估方法构成了图书馆员和参与者评估相关性的最常见基础。图书管理员在他们所有的评估中都有更多的限制,除了在初步搜索中产生了12个没有摘要的引文。该研究的结果可用于确定有效的技术,以参考访谈,选择数据库和筛选搜索结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Librarian and Researcher Assessments of Search Result Relevance: How Well Do They Align?

Conducting comprehensive but efficient literature searches for complex evidence syntheses involves selecting databases that will retrieve the greatest number of relevant results on the question. Lack of a comprehensive single database on allied health educational topics challenges those seeking such literature. In this study, six participants contributed research questions on instructional methods and materials for allied health patients, caregivers, and future health professionals. Two health sciences librarians created search strategies for these questions and searched eleven databases. Both the librarians and the six participants evaluated the search results using a rubric based on PICO to assess extent of alignment between the librarians' and requestors' relevance judgments. Intervention, Outcome, and Assessment Method constituted the most frequent bases for assessments of relevance by both librarians and participants. The librarians were more restrictive in all of their assessments except in a preliminary search yielding twelve citations without abstracts. The study's results could be used to identify effective techniques for reference interviewing, selecting databases, and weeding search results.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Reference Services Quarterly
Medical Reference Services Quarterly Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: This highly acclaimed, peer-reviewed journal is an essential working tool for medical and health sciences librarians. For those professionals who provide reference and public services to health sciences personnel in clinical, educational, or research settings, Medical Reference Services Quarterly covers topics of current interest and practical value in the areas of reference in medicine and related specialties, the biomedical sciences, nursing, and allied health. This exciting and comprehensive resource regularly publishes brief practice-oriented articles relating to medical reference services, with an emphasis on user education, database searching, and electronic information. Two columns feature the Internet and informatics education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信