Compare methods

	Information Literacy Rubric Assessment	Reference Transaction Analysis
Field	Library Information Science	Library Information Science
Family	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Year of origin	2015	1987
Originator	Megan Oakleaf & Project RAILS; Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U VALUE)	Marjorie Murfin & Gary Gugelchuk (WOREP); Bella Karr Gerlich & G. Lynn Berard (READ Scale)
Type	Analytic-rubric scoring pipeline for assessing information literacy from authentic student work	Structured assessment pipeline characterizing reference transactions by effort and outcome
Seminal source	Belanger, J., Zou, N., Mills, J. R., Holmes, C., & Oakleaf, M. (2015). Project RAILS: Lessons Learned about Rubric Assessment of Information Literacy Skills. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 15(4), 623-644.	Murfin, M. E., & Gugelchuk, G. M. (1987). Development and Testing of a Reference Transaction Assessment Instrument. College & Research Libraries, 48(4), 314-338.
Aliases	RAILS Rubric Assessment, VALUE Rubric Assessment, Information Literacy Rubric Scoring, Analytic Rubric Assessment of Information Literacy	READ Scale Analysis, WOREP Reference Evaluation, Reference Service Assessment, Reference Effort Assessment
Related	2	2
Summary	Information literacy rubric assessment measures how well students find, evaluate, and use information by scoring their authentic work, papers, annotated bibliographies, research projects, against an analytic rubric that names the dimensions of information literacy and describes performance levels for each. Rather than relying on multiple-choice tests of isolated knowledge or on student self-report, it judges what students actually produce. Project RAILS (Rubric Assessment of Information Literacy Skills), led by Megan Oakleaf, investigated how academic librarians can build and apply such rubrics collaboratively, while the Association of American Colleges and Universities' VALUE rubric supplies a widely used analytic framework with dimensions such as determining the extent of information needed, accessing it, evaluating sources critically, and using information ethically. Calibrated raters score the work, and the aggregated scores reveal achievement and instructional gaps.	Reference transaction analysis evaluates a library's reference service by systematically characterizing individual reference encounters, both the effort and expertise they demand and whether they succeed. Two complementary instruments anchor the method. The READ Scale (Reference Effort Assessment Data), developed by Bella Karr Gerlich and G. Lynn Berard, replaces simple tally counts with a six-point scale that records the effort, knowledge, skills, and teaching a transaction requires, so that a quick directional question and a complex research consultation are no longer counted as equal. The Wisconsin-Ohio Reference Evaluation Program (WOREP), created by Marjorie Murfin and Gary Gugelchuk, is a standardized, validated instrument that captures both patron-reported success and the factors associated with successful and unsuccessful transactions. Together they turn reference statistics from raw counts into actionable evidence about quality, staffing, and training.