Reference Transaction Analysis
Also known as: READ Scale Analysis, WOREP Reference Evaluation, Reference Service Assessment, Reference Effort Assessment
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.
Key highlights
- Captures the effort and expertise of reference work that plain transaction counts erase, via the READ Scale.
- Measures genuine success (patron found what was wanted) rather than mere satisfaction, through validated WOREP forms.
- Identifies the factors, collection, communication, question type, associated with failed transactions for targeted improvement.
- Provides standardized, benchmarkable data supporting staffing, training, and value-demonstration decisions.
Intuition
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
How it works
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
When to use it
Use reference transaction analysis when you need to understand and improve the quality, difficulty, and outcomes of reference service rather than merely count its volume, for staffing decisions, training needs assessment, demonstrating the value of expert reference work, or diagnosing why transactions succeed or fail. The READ Scale is appropriate whenever you want to capture the effort and expertise reference work requires; WOREP suits situations where you can administer brief patron and librarian forms and want validated, benchmarkable success data. The approach is less suitable when only crude volume figures are needed, when staff cannot consistently apply effort ratings without training, or when the question is about overall library service quality across all functions, for which a broad survey such as LibQUAL is better. Reliable application requires staff calibration so that effort ratings and outcome judgments are consistent across people and service points.
Strengths & limitations
- Captures the effort and expertise of reference work that plain transaction counts erase, via the READ Scale.
- Measures genuine success (patron found what was wanted) rather than mere satisfaction, through validated WOREP forms.
- Identifies the factors, collection, communication, question type, associated with failed transactions for targeted improvement.
- Provides standardized, benchmarkable data supporting staffing, training, and value-demonstration decisions.
- Effort ratings and outcome judgments require staff calibration to be consistent across people and service points.
- Self-report by patrons and librarians can be biased, and busy desks may under-record or rate hastily.
- Administering WOREP forms adds burden during transactions, which can depress participation or data quality.
- Results reflect the sampled period and service points and may not generalize to all reference contexts.
Common pitfalls
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Applications
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Frequently asked
What is the READ Scale and why use it instead of counting questions?
The READ Scale (Reference Effort Assessment Data) is a six-point ordinal scale that records how much effort, knowledge, skill, and teaching a reference transaction required, from a level-1 simple directional answer to a level-6 in-depth research consultation. Plain question counts treat all transactions as equal, so a desk handling many trivial queries looks as productive as one doing demanding research work. The READ Scale captures that difference, producing a distribution that shows the real complexity profile of the service. Gerlich and Berard's viability study confirmed that staff can apply the scale consistently, making it a practical replacement for, or supplement to, raw tallies.
How does WOREP measure reference success?
WOREP, the Wisconsin-Ohio Reference Evaluation Program, has both the patron and the librarian complete brief standardized forms after a transaction. Its defining choice is to measure success as the patron's report of whether they found what they actually wanted, not whether they were satisfied, because Murfin and Gugelchuk found that patrons frequently report satisfaction even when they did not get the right answer. The instrument also captures contextual factors, question type, collection adequacy, communication, so the data reveal not just the success rate but the reasons behind failures. It was validated against unobtrusive observation, giving it standing as a reliable standardized measure.
How does reference transaction analysis relate to LibQUAL?
They operate at different levels. LibQUAL measures users' perceptions of overall library service quality across broad dimensions through a population survey, producing high-level, benchmarkable attitudes. Reference transaction analysis zooms in on the reference service specifically, characterizing individual encounters by effort (READ Scale) and outcome (WOREP) to diagnose and improve that service. LibQUAL might tell you users feel staff helpfulness is below their expectations; transaction analysis tells you which kinds of reference questions are failing and why, so you can act. Many libraries use the broad survey for strategic perception data and transaction analysis for operational improvement of reference.
Sources
- 1.Murfin, M. E., & Gugelchuk, G. M. (1987). Development and Testing of a Reference Transaction Assessment Instrument. College & Research Libraries, 48(4), 314-338.
- 2.Gerlich, B. K., & Berard, G. L. (2010). Testing the Viability of the READ Scale (Reference Effort Assessment Data): Qualitative Statistics for Academic Reference Services. College & Research Libraries, 71(2), 116-137.
You have read it. What now?
Cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 23). Reference Transaction Analysis. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/library-information-science/reference-transaction-analysis