An evidence-based method for assessing the value of a search tool: a pilot study
Keywords:Libraries, Medical, Federated Search, Searching, User Behavior, Resident Physicians, Nursing Students, Graduate Students, Nursing Graduate Students, Pilot Study
Objective: The objective of this study was to develop an evidence-based method with a set of metrics that could be used to assess an information search tool.
Methods: This pilot study analyzed a two-group convenience sample of graduate nursing students and resident physicians. The intervention group received ten minutes of instruction on a familiar search tool (eSearcher). Each group was provided one prompt to search for clinical guidelines on a given topic within their scope of practice and asked to find the best result using only eSearcher (intervention group) or specifically excluding eSearcher (comparison group). Three measurements of search results were employed: time elapsed to complete the search, an accuracy score, and a participant-reported score of confidence in the result.
Results: Forty-two students participated in this study (23 graduate nursing students and 19 resident physicians). The intervention group consisted of 22 participants (12 graduate nursing students and 10 resident physicians), and the comparison group consisted of 20 participants (11 graduate nursing students and 9 resident physicians). The intervention group had lower mean ranks in both accuracy and confidence compared to the comparison (not eSearcher) group, although these differences were not significant. However, the intervention (eSearcher) group had significantly longer search times compared to the comparison (not eSearcher) group.
Discussion: These findings provided new insights into the performance of the search tool and how users felt about their search experience. The quantitative evidence gained from this study led directly to an informed decision to explore other options for search tools. The evidence-based methods and process developed in this pilot study will enable similar studies to test other student groups and other search tools, leading to better informed purchasing and instructional decisions.
Breeding M. Library technology guides: discovery products [Internet]. Library Technology Guides [cited 11 Apr 2018]. <https://librarytechnology.org/discovery/>.
American Academy of Family Physicians. Clinical practice guideline manual [Internet]. The Academy [cited 6 Apr 2018]. <https://www.aafp.org/patient-care/clinical-recommendations/cpg-manual.html>.
Georgas H. Google vs. the library: student preferences and perceptions when doing research using Google and a federated search tool. portal: Libr Acad. 2013 Apr;13(2):165–85.
Belliston CJ, Howland JL, Roberts BC. Undergraduate use of federated searching: a survey of preferences and perceptions of value-added functionality. Coll Res Libr. 2007 Nov;68(6):472–87.
Thiele RH, Poiro NC, Scalzo DC, Nemergut EC. Speed, accuracy, and confidence in Google, Ovid, PubMed, and UpToDate: results of a randomised trial. Postgrad Med J. 2010 Aug;86(1018):459–65. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/pgmj.2010.098053.
Fagan JC, Mandernach MA, Nelson CS, Paulo JR, Saunders G. Usability test results for a discovery tool in an academic library. Inform Technol Libr. 2012 Mar;31(1):83–112.
Comeaux DJ. Usability testing of a web-scale discovery system at an academic library. Coll Undergrad Libr. 2012 Apr;19(2–4):189–206. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2012.695671.
Krause R, Moscati R, Halpern S, Schwartz DG, Abbas J. Can emergency medicine residents reliably use the Internet to answer clinical questions? West J Emerg Med. 2011 Nov;12(4):442–7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5811%2Fwestjem.2010.9.1895.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.