Determining Gate Count Reliability in a Library Setting

Authors

  • Jeffrey Phillips Florida State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18438/B8R90P

Abstract

Objective – Patron counts are a common form of measurement for library assessment. To develop accurate library statistics, it is necessary to determine any differences between various counting devices. A yearlong comparison between card reader turnstiles and laser gate counters in a university library sought to offer a standard percentage of variance and provide suggestions to increase the precision of counts.

Methods – The collection of library exit counts identified the differences between turnstile and laser gate counter data. Statistical software helped to eliminate any inaccuracies in the collection of turnstile data, allowing this data set to be the base for comparison. Collection intervals were randomly determined and demonstrated periods of slow, average, and heavy traffic.

Results – After analyzing 1,039,766 patron visits throughout a year, the final totals only showed a difference of .43% (.0043) between the two devices. The majority of collection periods did not exceed a difference of 3% between the counting instruments.

Conclusion – Turnstiles card readers and laser gate counters provide similar levels of reliability when measuring patron activity. Each system has potential counting inaccuracies, but several methods exist to create more precise totals. Turnstile card readers are capable of offering greater detail involving patron identity, but their high cost makes them inaccessible for libraries with lower budgets. This makes laser gate counters an affordable alternative for reliable patron counting in an academic library.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Jeffrey Phillips, Florida State University

Student Success Librarian Robert Manning Strozier Library Librarian

Downloads

Published

2016-09-26

How to Cite

Phillips, J. (2016). Determining Gate Count Reliability in a Library Setting. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 11(3), 68–74. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8R90P

Issue

Section

Research Articles