Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Information Science, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Information Science, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

3 Master of Information Science and Knowledge, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

This descriptive survey evaluates the digital libraries of Allameh Tabataba’i University and Tebyan Cultural Institute based on the Xie and Joo (2013) digital library evaluation criteria. A checklist was made based on information from 10 structural dimensions of digital library evaluation criteria. It was then set up as a researcher-made questionnaire based on the Xie and Joo digital library evaluation criteria. To collect data, questionnaires were distributed among librarians and users of the two digital libraries. Sixty-three valid responses were collected and analysed with SPSS software .Findings showed that the two digital libraries were in a moderate condition in two dimensions (user engagement and context); and in good condition in the others. The findings of the inferential statistics show that there is no significant difference between users’ and employees’ viewpoints on the dimensions of the digital collection, interface design, context, preservation and administration (sustainability). However, regarding the information organization and services (level 0.01), the dimensions of technology and the effects on the user (level 0.02), there is a significant difference between the two systems in terms of the user engagement dimension with the relative superiority of Allameh Tabataba’i digital library.The results show that despite the differences in the type of these two libraries, there is not much difference between the studied dimensions (other than those mentioned in the findings), but in some dimensions, there is a slight difference between the respondents' opinions. It is seen with the relative and partial superiority of Allameh Tabataba’i digital library.

Keywords

Ahmad K han, Shakeel and Bhatti, Rubina. (2017). Digital competencies for developing and managing digital libraries. Department of libraries, Government College University Lahore, Pakistan.
Fuhr, Norbert. (2006). Evaluation of digital libraries. International Journal of Digital Libraries, 8:21-38.
Jeng, Judy. (2005). Usability Assessment of Academic Digital Libraries: Effectiveness, Efficiency, Satisfaction and Learnabiliey. School of Communication, Information and Library Studies, Rutgers, The state University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, U.S.A.
Lai, Chin-Feng et al. (2014). An evaluation model for digital libraries user interfaces using Fuzzy AHP. Institute of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National IIan University, IIan, Taiwan.
Stiller, Juliane and Petras, Vivien. (2018). Learning from Digital Library Evaluations: The Europeana Case 
Aus Evaluationen digitaler Bibliotheken lernen: Das Fallbeispiel Europeana, ABI Technik, 38 (1): Pages 37–45.
Xie, Hong Iris. (2006). Evaluation of digital libraries: criteria and problems from                                                                                         users’ perspectives. School of information studies, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA. Library & Information Science Research, 28: 433-452.
Xie, Hong Iris. (2008). Users’ evaluation of digital libraries (DLS): Their uses, their criteria, and their assessment. University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA. Information Processing and Management, 44: 1346-1373. 
Xie, Iris & Joo, Soohyung. (2013). Evaluation Constructs and Criteria for Digital Libraries: A Document Analysis. In The joint Conference of Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science and The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (pp: 126-140). [S.L.]: IGI Global. 
Zhang, Y. (2010). Developing a holistic model for digital library evaluation. Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 61(1): 88–110.