Measuring Readings by
Surveys Using Critical
Incident Technique
Surveys of Scientists and Engineers:
Ensuring Reliable Research Evidence
for Good Practice (SIGs STI, USE)
Carol Tenopir, University of Tennessee
Donald King, UNC and Univ of Pittsburgh
What you want to answer determines
types of questions




Demographic
Recollection of behaviors (how often
something is done)
Opinions (reactions to statements on a scale,
valuing services on a scale)
Critical Incident (specific event and
outcomes)
Incident of Last Reading



Variation on critical incident
Two stage random sample: 1) readers 2)
readings
Last readings are random in time
Critical (Last) Incident Is:





Specific (last incident of reading)
Easier for people to remember
Includes all reading--e & print, library &
personal
Details of readings: source, format, time
spent
Purpose, motivation, outcomes
Our reading surveys:








Have used this technique since 1970s
Include over 30,000 responses
Provide trends since 1977
Include university and non university studies
2 national surveys of scientists (1977, 1984)
Astronomers and pediatricians who belong to
their main professional societies (2003, 2004)
Over 100 organizations 1977-present
10 universities 2001-present
These Surveys are Designed to:


Provide a complete picture of information seeking
and reading patterns (print and electronic)
Distinguish:
 Sources of articles read
 How articles are identified/found
 Time spent reading and purpose of reading
 Age of articles read
 Format of articles read
 Outcomes from reading
 Value of reading from library and elsewhere
Demographic (faculty or student)
plus critical incident (source of
article)
12%
46%
Personal
Subscriptions
Library
Provided
Separate
Copies
11%
14%
75%
42%
Faculty
Doctoral Students
Critical Incident for Method of Article
Discovery
3%
5%
8%
3%
Browsing
8%
Online Searching
21%
21%
Cited in Other Pub.
16%
39%
76%
Another Person
Astronomers
Other
Pediatricians
10%
7%
11%
12%
48%
12%
48%
11%
20%
21%
US
Universities
UNSW
Time Spent Reading Varies by
Subject
Subject
Discipline
Medical Faculty
Average Time Per
Article (Min)
22
Chemists
43
Life Scientists
Physicists
26
45
Soc Sci/Psych
38
Pediatricians
20
Engineers
44
Updated June 2004
Principal Purpose of Reading by all
Univ. Faculty and by Pediatricians
Purposes
Primary Research
Current Awareness
Teaching
Background/other
Writing Proposals
Consulting/diagnosis/treatment
Fac
32%
22%
18%
18%
10%
Ped
5%
50%
5%
6%
2%
32%
Researchers read old and new articles,
but it varies by subject discipline…
13%
2%
1 year
2-5 years
>6 years
17%
23%
64%
81%
Pediatricians
Astronomers
10.4%
20.8%
68.8%
Univ Scientists
Print or Electronic
20%
19%
Electronic
81%
Print
Pediatricians
80%
Astronomers
37%
63%
Univ Scientists
Purpose and Ranking of Importance:
University Faculty
#2
Primary Research
32%
#3
Current Awareness
22%
#4
Background
18%
#5
Teaching
18%
#1
Writing
10%
Older articles are judged more
valuable & are more likely to come
from libraries
1st Year
10.3%
33.5%
Library
Personal
18.1%
53.2%
Separate
56.3%
28.8%
17.5%
2-5 Years
9.2%
73.3%
Over 5 Years
Critical (Last) Incident Method Can
Show Usefulness and Value of Library
Collections






Saves faculty time (15 min/reading)
Library reading rated higher in importance (5.5
vs. 4.7 in 1-7 scale)
Readers take more time reading library articles
(39 vs. 33 minutes)
Achievers read more and use library collections
more than non-achievers
Articles from libraries yield more favorable
outcomes
Articles from libraries help achieve greater
productivity
Survey instruments at:
http://web.utk.edu/~tenopir/
research/survey_instruments.html