READ and WOREP are particularly useful in determining if there are staff members who may need more training or if there are tools in which all reference staff could benefit from additional training.
(16.) WOREP, http://worep.library.kent.edu/ (accessed March 15, 2013).
All of these specific criticisms have been previously dealt with in the design of the WOREP. We spent much time agonizing over and grappling with these very same issues, which are familiar to all reference librarians in all fields.
Criticism: The WOREP "actually measures customer satisfaction."
In the WOREP all outcomes are measured in terms of patron.
Neither this study nor the general WOREP study distinguishes between graduate and undergraduate student employees.
An important component of the library employees' portion of the WOREP survey consists of identifying various environmental factors that may affect the success of the reference transaction.
Although data from specific-item questions are typically excluded from most WOREP analysis, it is interesting to note that the total percentage of these questions answered in music libraries was much higher than that in general libraries.
Most of the trends identified in this article have been consistent throughout the study to date, and it will be interesting to see if they remain so as we add more libraries to the growing WOREP database.
(4.) It should be noted, however, that a recent study of longitudinal data from the Wisconsin-Ohio Reference Evaluation Program (WOREP) shows a marked increase in the percentage of overall transactions handled by non-librarian employees, from 11.63% in 1983 to 32.14% in 1997.
(7.) The original WOREP survey instrument, designed for use in general reference departments.
(9.) For the class of questions excluded from most WOREP reference analysis, see the library-employee portion of the survey instrument, box 1, item A-1, in the appendix.