by Craig Bickle
Master's Research Paper, Kent State University, 1996.
Hypothesis #1 rejected: "When videos are prominently displayed in a community college library, the circulation of these items increases."
Hypothesis #2 rejected: "When copies of a recommended list of videos are make available to patrons, the circulation of these items increases."
Experiment rejecting hypotheses
Location: Columbus State Community College
Groups:
- Experimental group #1: 48 videos in the 800s that had circulated poorly displayed near the circulation desk below a large sign saying, "Seen anything good lately? Check these out".
- Experimental group #2: 48 videos in the 800s that had circulated poorly were listed, title and call number, on a single sheet of paper entitled "Some recommended videos on literature." This list was placed next to the display with a sign that read, "Or try these."
- Control group: 48 videos in the 800s that had circulated poorly remained on the shelves.
- Pre-test period: October 2, 1995 to December 11, 1995, measurement of circulation of all groups while on the shelf.
- Test period: January 9, 1996 to March 19, 1996, measurement of circulation of all groups in experimental conditions.
- Moving videos from regular shelves to a display near the circulation desks increased circulation 200%.
- Listing videos on a recommended list increased circulation 650%, but this dramatic increase in the result of the much lower pre-test point than the displayed videos.
- While the control group circulation increased only 20%, we can see that this small percentage results from an extraordinarily high pre-test circulation.
- The difference in test period circulation for the three groups is not statistically significant.
- Therefore, we can not be sure the increased circulation is caused by the experimental treatments and the two hypotheses must be rejected.