Abstract
Clinical psychology has received little attention as a subject in health sciences library collections. This study seeks to demonstrate the relative importance of the monographic literature to clinical psychology through the examination of citations in graduate student theses and dissertations at the Fordham Health Sciences Library, Wright State University. Dissertations and theses were sampled randomly; citations were classified by format, counted, and subjected to statistical analysis. Books and book chapters together account for 35% of the citations in clinical psychology dissertations, 25% in nursing theses, and 8% in biomedical sciences theses and dissertations. Analysis of variance indicates that the citations in dissertations and theses in the three areas differ significantly (F = 162.2 with 2 and 253 degrees of freedom, P = 0.0001). Dissertations and theses in biomedical sciences and nursing theses both cite significantly more journals per book than the dissertations in clinical psychology. These results support the hypothesis that users of clinical psychology literature rely more heavily on books than many other users of a health sciences library. Problems with using citation analyses in a single subject to determine a serials to monographs ratio for a health sciences library are pointed out.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Burdick A. J., Butler A., Sullivan M. G. Citation patterns in the health sciences: implications for serials/monographic fund allocation. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1993 Jan;81(1):44–47. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Line M. B. Fallacies noted in article on citation patterns. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1993 Oct;81(4):442–442. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schloman B. F. Mapping the literature of allied health: project overview. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1997 Jul;85(3):271–277. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]