Negotiating Accessibility for Electronic Resources

Abstract

Accessibility of library electronic resources is a must. Its importance derives from professional ethics of librarianship, rising total costs of acquisition, and mounting legal challenges to colleges and universities that fail to provide resources accessible to users with disabilities. Library staff are responsible for ensuring the accessibility of vendor-licensed eresources. This column reviews the accessibility clauses of nine model license agreements for electronic resources. It describes terms that should go into an optimal accessibility clause and creates a composite model clause. It also provides guidance for library staff seeking to negotiate stronger accessibility language into vendor license agreements. Finally, it addresses the impact of accommodation requests on the total cost of acquiring library eresources, concluding with a call to redouble efforts to advocate for greater accessibility and educate both vendors and library staff about its importance.     

Measuring agreement between two statistics with applications to age standardization

Summary.  We detail a general method for measuring agreement between two statistics. An application is two ratios of directly standardized rates which differ only by the choice of the standard. If the statistics have a high value for the coefficient of agreement then the expected squared difference between the statistics is small relative to the variance of the average of the two statistics, and inferences vary little by changing statistics. The estimation of a coefficient of agreement between two statistics is not straightforward because there is only one pair of observed values, each statistic calculated from the data. We introduce estimators of the coefficient of agreement for two statistics and discuss their use, especially as applied to functions of standardized rates.     

Spatial variation in soil inorganic nitrogen across an arid urban ecosystem

We explored variations in inorganic soil nitrogen (N) concentrations across metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, and the surrounding desert using a probability-based synoptic survey. Data were examined using spatial statistics on the entire region, as well as for the desert and urban sites separately. Concentrations of both NO₃-N and NH₄-N were markedly higher and more heterogeneous amongst urban compared to desert soils. Regional variation in soil NO₃-N concentration was best explained by latitude, land use history, population density, along with percent cover of impervious surfaces and lawn, whereas soil NH₄-N concentrations were related to only latitude and population density. Within the urban area, patterns in both soil NO₃-N and NH₄-N were best predicted by elevation, population density and type of irrigation in the surrounding neighborhood. Spatial autocorrelation of soil NO₃-N concentrations explained 49% of variation among desert sites but was absent between urban sites. We suggest that inorganic soil N concentrations are controlled by a number of ‘local’ or ‘neighborhood’ human-related drivers in the city, rather than factors related to an urban-rural gradient.     

A social identity model of prosocial behaviors within nonprofit organizations

This study draws on social identity theory, while developing and testing the Social Identification Model of Prosocial Behavior among voluntary participants in nonprofit organizations. This model posits relationships between organization identification, commitment, satisfaction, and prosocial behavior among nonprofit volunteers. Path analysis results indicate successful identification of the model. Specifically, when volunteers identified with their nonprofit, they had higher levels of prosocial behaviors, commitment, and satisfaction. This study provides several important extensions to social identity theory and nonprofit literatures while highlighting the need for further research examining motivations behind prosocial behaviors within nonprofits.     

Type I error rates from likelihood‐based repeated measures analyses of incomplete longitudinal data

The last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach is commonly utilized to handle missing values in the primary analysis of clinical trials. However, recent evidence suggests that likelihood‐based analyses developed under the missing at random (MAR) framework are sensible alternatives. The objective of this study was to assess the Type I error rates from a likelihood‐based MAR approach – mixed‐model repeated measures (MMRM) – compared with LOCF when estimating treatment contrasts for mean change from baseline to endpoint (Δ). Data emulating neuropsychiatric clinical trials were simulated in a 4 × 4 factorial arrangement of scenarios, using four patterns of mean changes over time and four strategies for deleting data to generate subject dropout via an MAR mechanism. In data with no dropout, estimates of Δ and SE_Δ from MMRM and LOCF were identical. In data with dropout, the Type I error rates (averaged across all scenarios) for MMRM and LOCF were 5.49% and 16.76%, respectively. In 11 of the 16 scenarios, the Type I error rate from MMRM was at least 1.00% closer to the expected rate of 5.00% than the corresponding rate from LOCF. In no scenario did LOCF yield a Type I error rate that was at least 1.00% closer to the expected rate than the corresponding rate from MMRM. The average estimate of SE_Δ from MMRM was greater in data with dropout than in complete data, whereas the average estimate of SE_Δ from LOCF was smaller in data with dropout than in complete data, suggesting that standard errors from MMRM better reflected the uncertainty in the data. The results from this investigation support those from previous studies, which found that MMRM provided reasonable control of Type I error even in the presence of MNAR missingness. No universally best approach to analysis of longitudinal data exists. However, likelihood‐based MAR approaches have been shown to perform well in a variety of situations and are a sensible alternative to the LOCF approach. MNAR methods can be used within a sensitivity analysis framework to test the potential presence and impact of MNAR data, thereby assessing robustness of results from an MAR method. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.