Tests of methods for evaluating bibliographic databases: an analysis of the National Library of Medicine's handling of literatures in the medical behavioral sciences.
This article reports on five separate studies designed for the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to develop and test methodologies for evaluating the products of large databases. The methodologies were tested on literatures of the medical behavioral sciences (MBS). One of these studies examined how well NLM covered MBS monographic literature using CATLINE and OCLC. Another examined MBS journal and serial literature coverage in MEDLINE and other MBS-related databases available through DIALOG. These two studies used 1010 items derived from the reference lists of sixty-one journals, and tested for gaps and overlaps in coverage in the various databases. A third study examined the quality of the indexing NLM provides to MBS literatures and developed a measure of indexing as a system component. The final two studies explored how well MEDLINE retrieved documents on topics submitted by MBS professionals and how online searchers viewed MEDLINE (and other systems and databases) in handling MBS topics. The five studies yielded both broad research outcomes and specific recommendations to NLM.
D000043:Abstracting and Indexing; D001524:Behavioral Medicine; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D008523:MEDLARS / Q000592:standards*; D008722:Methods; D009317:National Library of Medicine (U.S.); D012107:Research Design; D014481:United States