Determining Gate Count Reliability in a Library Setting
Objective – Patron counts are a common form of measurement for library assessment. To develop accurate library statistics, it is necessary to determine any differences between various counting devices. A yearlong comparison between card reader turnstiles and laser gate counters in a university libra...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
University of Alberta
2016-09-01
|
Series: | Evidence Based Library and Information Practice |
Online Access: | https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/27884 |
id |
doaj-d6267452dcb741f09d6269b01c218f46 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-d6267452dcb741f09d6269b01c218f462020-11-25T02:05:33ZengUniversity of AlbertaEvidence Based Library and Information Practice1715-720X2016-09-0111310.18438/B8R90PDetermining Gate Count Reliability in a Library SettingJeffrey Phillips0Florida State UniversityObjective – Patron counts are a common form of measurement for library assessment. To develop accurate library statistics, it is necessary to determine any differences between various counting devices. A yearlong comparison between card reader turnstiles and laser gate counters in a university library sought to offer a standard percentage of variance and provide suggestions to increase the precision of counts. Methods – The collection of library exit counts identified the differences between turnstile and laser gate counter data. Statistical software helped to eliminate any inaccuracies in the collection of turnstile data, allowing this data set to be the base for comparison. Collection intervals were randomly determined and demonstrated periods of slow, average, and heavy traffic. Results – After analyzing 1,039,766 patron visits throughout a year, the final totals only showed a difference of .43% (.0043) between the two devices. The majority of collection periods did not exceed a difference of 3% between the counting instruments. Conclusion – Turnstiles card readers and laser gate counters provide similar levels of reliability when measuring patron activity. Each system has potential counting inaccuracies, but several methods exist to create more precise totals. Turnstile card readers are capable of offering greater detail involving patron identity, but their high cost makes them inaccessible for libraries with lower budgets. This makes laser gate counters an affordable alternative for reliable patron counting in an academic library.https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/27884 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Jeffrey Phillips |
spellingShingle |
Jeffrey Phillips Determining Gate Count Reliability in a Library Setting Evidence Based Library and Information Practice |
author_facet |
Jeffrey Phillips |
author_sort |
Jeffrey Phillips |
title |
Determining Gate Count Reliability in a Library Setting |
title_short |
Determining Gate Count Reliability in a Library Setting |
title_full |
Determining Gate Count Reliability in a Library Setting |
title_fullStr |
Determining Gate Count Reliability in a Library Setting |
title_full_unstemmed |
Determining Gate Count Reliability in a Library Setting |
title_sort |
determining gate count reliability in a library setting |
publisher |
University of Alberta |
series |
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice |
issn |
1715-720X |
publishDate |
2016-09-01 |
description |
Objective – Patron counts are a common form of measurement for library assessment. To develop accurate library statistics, it is necessary to determine any differences between various counting devices. A yearlong comparison between card reader turnstiles and laser gate counters in a university library sought to offer a standard percentage of variance and provide suggestions to increase the precision of counts.
Methods – The collection of library exit counts identified the differences between turnstile and laser gate counter data. Statistical software helped to eliminate any inaccuracies in the collection of turnstile data, allowing this data set to be the base for comparison. Collection intervals were randomly determined and demonstrated periods of slow, average, and heavy traffic.
Results – After analyzing 1,039,766 patron visits throughout a year, the final totals only showed a difference of .43% (.0043) between the two devices. The majority of collection periods did not exceed a difference of 3% between the counting instruments.
Conclusion – Turnstiles card readers and laser gate counters provide similar levels of reliability when measuring patron activity. Each system has potential counting inaccuracies, but several methods exist to create more precise totals. Turnstile card readers are capable of offering greater detail involving patron identity, but their high cost makes them inaccessible for libraries with lower budgets. This makes laser gate counters an affordable alternative for reliable patron counting in an academic library. |
url |
https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/27884 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT jeffreyphillips determininggatecountreliabilityinalibrarysetting |
_version_ |
1724937559233003520 |