817 Effectiveness of Academic Library Research Guides for Building College Students’ Information Literacy Skills: A Scoping Review Erica Lynn DeFrain, Leslie Sult, and Nicole Pagowsky* Academic librarians invest significant time and effort in developing and maintaining research guides, yet the extent to which these tools effectively support college stu- dents’ information literacy development remains uncertain. This scoping review aimed to comprehensively examine the existing literature on the effectiveness of academic library research guides in building students’ information literacy skills. Following a rigorous screening process of 1,724 publications, 61 studies met the inclusion criteria for analysis. The review reveals that much of the research in this area stems from us- ability studies and exploratory single site case studies, many of which are character- ized by limited methodological transparency and a lack of clearly defined outcomes related to student learning. These findings highlight both the growing interest in evaluating research guides and the need for more robust, outcome-based research that directly examines their impact on information literacy. This review provides a foundation for future studies that seek to assess and improve the pedagogical value of research guides in academic settings. Introduction The overwhelming information landscape has presented myriad challenges for society; in- formation overload and increased exposure to mis- and dis-information have made it more important than ever to ensure that universities equip students with information literacy skills (IL). Working to ensure students information literacy has been a longtime concern for aca- demic librarians; however, the need to develop effective IL practices and programs has become increasingly important due to a number of factors, including the damaging persistence of anti-intellectualism (Stewart, 2022); students’ rapid evaluative heuristics, which often fail to detect misleading and false information (Wineburg et al., 2022); and increased pressures from employers to align new graduates’ critical thinking abilities with workplace and workforce expectations (Head & Eisenberg, 2010; Taylor et al., 2022). Over the past few decades, academic library research guides have become one of the most widely adopted devices through which librarians and other information professionals *  Erica Lynn DeFrain is Associate Professor, Social Sciences Librarian at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, email: edefrain2@unl.edu; Leslie Sult is Librarian at the University of Arizona, email: lsult@arizona.edu; Nicole Pagowsky is Librarian at the University of Arizona, email: nfp@arizona.edu. ©2025 Erica Lynn DeFrain, Leslie Sult, and Nicole Pagowsky, Attribution-NonCommercial (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) CC BY-NC. mailto:edefrain2@unl.edu mailto:lsult@arizona.edu mailto:nfp@arizona.edu https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 818 College & Research Libraries September 2025 strive to teach students to navigate, select, locate, and use relevant sources of information for their academic and learning needs (Gardois et al., 2012; Hemmig, 2005; Hennesy & Adams, 2021). Also referred to as pathfinders, finding aids, subject guides, course guides, and topic guides (henceforth referred to as guides), guides are typically created for “a subject area, a type of user, a tool, or a class and contain links, videos, and handouts that are intended to help a user access a resource or learn something” (German et al., 2017, p. 162). Born from traditional bibliographic approaches to compiling information, in which librarians presented carefully curated topical collections to guide researchers (Dunsmore, 2002), the first guides were viewed as efforts towards scaling reference services, as “the librarian cannot always help and is not always asked” (Harbeson, 1972, p. 111). Today’s guides continue to promote the idea of scalability of researcher support to an ostensibly global audience. In addition to their potential to educate en masse, numerous presumed benefits have helped to drive and sustain this approach, including beliefs that: guides attract a user base largely reluctant to seek help from librarians; they train students in fundamental information seeking skills and help introduce them to navigating academic libraries; and they assist in providing training in engaging with scholarly resources (Jackson & Stacy-Bates, 2016). Additionally, guides are considered an efficient and practical means for collaborating with instructors and appending IL into a course that might already be full of content (Kline et al., 2017). Historically, research guides have enjoyed widespread acceptance as beneficial to learn- ing (Dalton & Pan, 2014). Early proponents lauded their ability to teach information-seeking strategies and support disciplinary research practices, emphasizing the “immediate feedback” provided in real-world searches (Harbeson, 1972, p. 113). Despite this long-held belief in their effectiveness, critical research examining their actual impact lagged significantly. While ex- tensive best practices literature exists on guide design (Goodsett, 2020), it’s important to note that these recommendations lack strong underpinnings from actual research on student use. In 2005, Hemmig described a “continuity of pathfinder theory” upholding consistent design and evaluation criteria but could find “no published studies of actual research guide use, us- ing actual research guide users” (p. 84). This disconnect between assumptions about guide effectiveness, as well as the limited re- search available, calls for a more critical approach to understanding how students interact with research guides and how these interactions impact their learning. Without a comprehensive overview of guide effectiveness studies, assertions surrounding best practices cannot be vali- dated as there is little to no consensus about content, audience, user engagement, placement, or the effectiveness of these guides for meeting established IL learning outcomes (Hemmig, 2005; J. Lee et al., 2021; Paschke-Wood et al., 2020). As we were unable to locate any other published or in-progress reviews on the effectiveness of guides for learning, the aim of this scoping re- view was to provide a comprehensive overview of the study design characteristics, evaluation and assessment methods, and a summary of findings regarding the effectiveness of guides in developing or improving the IL skills of college students. Our review was guided by the fol- lowing research questions: (1) What are the IL-related learning outcomes that are associated with guides? (2) How are guides evaluated or assessed? and (3) What does the existing evidence say regarding their effectiveness at developing or improving the IL skills of college students? Methods This scoping review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Effectiveness of Academic Library Research Guides 819 Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (Tricco et al., 2018). Following the a priori protocol development guidance from members of the JBI Scoping Review Meth- odology Group (Peters et al., 2022), we preregistered our review protocol on November 3, 2022 with the Open Science Framework (DeFrain et al., 2022). In our review, we adhered to Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) five-stage framework for conducting a scoping study: research question identification; collection of relevant studies; study selection; data charting; and sum- marizing results. Eligibility Criteria The full inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Appendix A) were structured around the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study Characteristics) framework (Thom- as et al., 2023). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were guided by an explicit or implied research question regarding the effectiveness of guides for developing college students’ IL. Our definition of research was intentionally broad and inclusive: with no expectation that guides be examined in clinical or controlled environments, we sought to consider the full spectrum of “real-world practice” approaches characteristic of learning effectiveness studies (Singal et al., 2014, p. 1). Therefore, we considered any study whose author asserted the work as research or assessment. Our definition of IL was similarly broad. As we were interested in understanding the role that guides play in student learning, rather than a specific model of IL that was associ- ated with any set of guides, we included conceptualizations of IL that were current or historic; individually, institutionally, or professionally generated; and locally or globally defined. The study population must have included college students and gathered empirical data from or about this population as part of the study’s assessment of research guide effective- ness. No publication date limiters were used, as pedagogical interest in and critiques of library guides go back decades (Vileno, 2007), and the purpose of guides as providing introductory academic research training has been an historically consistent objective (Dalton & Pan, 2014). Although the scalability of online dissemination can remove barriers to access, whether the content is delivered physically or virtually does not inherently alter its effectiveness for learning (Bowen, 2014); therefore, we included studies of online and print-based, guides. We did not actively limit results to any language, however the publications indexed within the included databases are predominately written in English, and, as we explain later, we ulti- mately made the decision to exclude the few non-English language studies found due to our own language limitations. Information Sources We searched five scholarly databases for comprehensive coverage and broad disciplinary rep- resentation: Academic Search Premier (EBSCO, multidisciplinary); APA PsycINFO (EBSCO, psychological and behavioral sciences); ERIC (ProQuest, educational research); LISTA (EBSCO, library and information science); Web of Science Social Sciences Citation Index (Clarivate). We searched three additional databases to capture relevant grey literature or in-progress works: Dissertations & Theses Abstracts & Indexes (ProQuest); EdArXiv; and LIS Scholarship Archive (LISSA). Full electronic search strategies for each of the included databases can be viewed in the preregistered protocol (DeFrain et al., 2022). The first search was conducted January 4, 2023, and rerun on January 12, 2024. 820 College & Research Libraries September 2025 Selection of Sources All citations were imported into Zotero, and citation metadata manually checked by a student research assistant for accuracy and completeness. Duplicates were automatically removed when imported into Covidence systematic review software, with an additional 19 manually removed during subsequent screening stages. Two screeners worked in duplicate during both title and abstract and full text review stages applying the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements or dis- crepancies between screeners were resolved by discussion with the full research team. Once the initial corpus of literature was reviewed, the citations of included studies were scanned for additional literature that may not have been captured in the initial searches. Although this snowball search practice has been critiqued as a possible source of introduced bias (Vassar et al., 2016), when conducted carefully, hand searching can still be a valuable method for locat- ing literature from outside a review’s named databases (Craane et al., 2012). An additional 65 possible studies were discovered after duplicate studies were removed. These studies were then screened using the same multi-stage review techniques with two independent reviewers, adding a total of 12 studies into the final data extraction stage. Data Charting Process Through several iterations, we developed a data charting table in Covidence to gather study characteristics aligned with our original research questions. We used the Template for Interven- tion Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to improve completeness in the reporting of interventions in research studies (Hoffmann et al., 2014). Table 1 presents our approach to data charting and the features we considered necessary for identifying, summarizing, and mapping the outcomes, evidence, and effectiveness findings from the entire body of literature analyzed in this review. Two independent screeners charted study characteristics for each item meeting the inclusion criteria, and we worked as a team to resolve discrepancies. Summary of Results We followed a narrative review approach to describing and summarizing the body of stud- ies in this review (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). By gathering standard information from each individual study in a uniform way, we were able to identify dominant practices, novel ap- proaches, and significant gaps. Our summary also includes basic numerical distributions of the studies aligned with our original research questions. Critical Appraisal As this scoping review sought to identify and compile the entire body of evaluation of guide literature, we did not critically appraise individual sources of evidence for methodological rigor nor evaluate claims. Because of this practice, it should not be assumed that the effectiveness findings reported by study authors can be understood as valid evidence towards the overall effectiveness of guides for learning. Results The PRISMA flow diagram (see Figure 1) illustrates the search results and study selection process for each stage of screening. A total of 1,724 records were located through database and hand citation searching, 563 of which were identified as duplicates and removed. The review team screened titles and abstracts of 1,161 records, excluding 934 as irrelevant. During Effectiveness of Academic Library Research Guides 821 TABLE 1 Explanation of Data Charting Process Aligned with Research Questions Research Question Field Definition Field input options What are the IL-related learning outcomes associated with research guides? Study purpose Overall goal or reason for the study or publication Open text Theory or framework Knowledge systems or beliefs held by authors that assumed the validity of their study Open text Outcomes measured IL-related behaviors, attitudes, goals measured by authors Open text How are research guides evaluated or assessed? Study location Country where study was conducted Open text Investigatory foci Subject of study associating guides with learning Usability; usage; satisfaction; utility; evidence of learning Guide integration Type of guide and its use as intervention / within educational setting Subject guide Course guide Embedded into LMS Supplemental to library instruction Print-based Other: (N) Population Study sample / participant characteristics Open text Data sources Data gathered or provided as evidence; marked if used as pre/post Survey; Web stats; Test performance; Usability testing; Assignment performance; Interviews; Citation analysis; Focus group; Content analysis Other: Study funding Grants, awards, or internal funds supporting study Yes; No; N/A What does the existing evidence say regarding their effectiveness at developing or improving IL skills of college students? Findings Directionality of findings re. learning effectiveness Positive; neutral; negative; mixed Explanation Authors’ explanation of findings Open text Limitations Study weaknesses per study authors Open text 822 College & Research Libraries September 2025 full text screening, the study team sought 227 publications for consideration, although they were not able to retrieve the full text for two articles. The study team excluded an additional 164 studies during this stage, with 69 removed because no relevant research questions were expressed, and another 64 deemed as non-research. A total of 61 studies were determined as meeting the criteria for inclusion in the study (see Appendix B). FIGURE 1 PRISMA Flow Diagram Effectiveness of Academic Library Research Guides 823 Characteristics of Sources of Evidence As shown in Table 2, the full body of studies in the review were published between 1977 and 2023, with the first investigation of guides’ helpfulness to its users reported within the entry of “Pathfinders, Library” in the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science (Gardner, 1977). Most studies located were published since 2010, conducted in the United States, and published as journal articles. Only four studies attributed any source of funding in support of the research. Study Purpose Thirteen (21.3%) of the publications were conducted specifically to investigate guides as tools for learning (Bisalski et al., 2017; Bowen, 2014; Greenwell, 2016; Hansen, 2014; Hsieh et al., 2014; Lauseng et al., 2021; L. Lee et al., 2003; Y. Y. Lee & Lowe, 2018; Magi, 2003; Miner & Alexander, 2010; Paul et al., 2020; Pickens-French & Mcdonald, 2013; Rothstein, 1989; Stone et al., 2018). For most studies however, the research into the learning effectiveness of guides was a smaller component of a larger investigation. Several studies in this subset focused more broadly on the use and perceptions of guides as one element contributing to the overall value of the library and its services to its users (D. Becker et al., 2017; D. A. Becker et al., 2022; Bowen, 2012; Brewer et al., 2017; Carey et al., 2020; Chiware, 2014; Gerrish & Martin, 2023; Li, 2016; Mubofu & Malekani, 2021; Mussell & Croft, 2013; Tang & Tseng, 2014; Tomlin et al., 2017). Much of the remaining research focused more generally on the creation, use, usability, satisfaction, and preferences for guide design as a means of identifying and justifying their value as tools for learning. TABLE 2 Publication Characteristics of included Studies (N = 61) Publication decade 1970s 1 1.6% 1980s 2 3.3% 1990s 1 1.6% 2000s 7 11.5% 2010s 40 65.6% 2020–January 2024 10 16.4% Publication type Journal article 58 95.1% Encyclopedia 1 1.6% Report 1 1.6% Thesis or dissertation 1 1.6% Study location Canada 5 8.2% Ireland 1 1.6% South Africa 3 4.9% Tanzania 1 1.6% United States 51 83.6% N/A 1 1.6% Funding Yes 4 6.6% N/A 57 93.4% 824 College & Research Libraries September 2025 Guiding Theories and Frameworks Despite the importance of contextualizing and structuring research according to a method- ological foundation, thirteen (21.3%) of the studies did not explicitly situate their examinations within any identifiable theory or guiding frameworks (Almeida & Tidal, 2017; Archer et al., 2009; Barker & Hoffman, 2021; D. Becker et al., 2017; Carey et al., 2020; Daly, 2010; Hsieh et al., 2014; Lauseng et al., 2021; Pickens-French & Mcdonald, 2013; Rafferty, 2013; Rothstein, 1989; Stone et al., 2018; Wharton & Pritchard, 2020). Though IL and other library generated profes- sional standards are central factors in evaluating the effectiveness of library guides as learning tools, only seven (11.5%) of the studies explicitly discuss disciplinarily derived frameworks (D. A. Becker et al., 2022; Bowen, 2012; Gilman et al., 2017; Y. Y. Lee & Lowe, 2018; Little, 2010; Mubofu & Malekani, 2021; Scoulas, 2021). Of the studies published after the 2016 release of the ACRL Information Literacy Framework, only one (Y. Y. Lee & Lowe, 2018) discussed how the Framework was used to shape and inform their study. Several theories and frameworks external to library science were referenced, echoing Lee and Lowe’s (2018) drawing upon “decades of research on how students learn and impedi- ments to learning … [especially] cognitive load theory, how students learn new ideas, and impediments to learning, specifically research anxiety” (p. 207). Eight (Bowen et al., 2018; Fagerheim et al., 2017; Gibbons, 2003; Lierman et al., 2019; Miles & Bergstrom, 2009; Mussell & Croft, 2013; Slemons, 2013; Thorngate & Hoden, 2017) focused on use and usability as a means of guiding their studies. This was seen in Thorngate and Hoden (2017), who wrote “If these guides are to support student learning well, it is critical that they provide an effective user experience” (p. 844). Several referenced constructivist theories (Bowen et al., 2018; Brewer et al., 2017; Hansen, 2014); three considered student mental models (Y. Y. Lee & Lowe, 2018; Leighton & May, 2013; Sinkinson et al., 2012); and two applied the Technology Acceptance Model (D. A. Becker et al., 2022; Sharrar, 2017). Six studies were informed by cognitive load theory (Baker, 2014; Bowen et al., 2018; Y. Y. Lee & Lowe, 2018; Metter & Willis, 1993; Miner & Alexander, 2010; Paul et al., 2020). Outcomes Measured Most of the studies measured outcomes regarding student satisfaction, preferences, engagement, and other affective states. Fifty-four (88.5%) of the 61 total studies measured such outcomes, 48 of which focused solely on these emotional outcomes. Forty-one (67.2%) included a question asking students whether they found guides helpful to their research needs. Fourteen (23.0%) studies explored knowledge and skills more directly related to IL outcomes (Archer et al., 2009; Bisalski et al., 2017; Bowen, 2014; Bowen et al., 2018; Greenwell, 2016; Hansen, 2014; Hsieh et al., 2014; Lauseng et al., 2021; L. Lee et al., 2003; Y. Y. Lee & Lowe, 2018; Miner & Alexander, 2010; Rafferty, 2013; Soskin & Eldblom, 1984; Stone et al., 2018). These studies generally sought to associate guide use with test performance and course grades, where outcomes included students’ ability to find and use primary resources (Archer et al., 2009), students’ self-reported skills on an exam (Bisalski et al., 2017), and knowledge checks testing students’ advanced search techniques, such as understanding of Boolean searching (Bowen, 2014; Greenwell, 2016; Hsieh et al., 2014; Lauseng et al., 2021; L. Lee et al., 2003; Soskin & Eldblom, 1984). At least one study reported challenges in setting measurable outcomes. Archer et al (2009) began their study as an evaluation of a guide’s effectiveness for developing primary source research skills, but ultimately shifted when they struggled to operationalize relevant learning Effectiveness of Academic Library Research Guides 825 outcomes: “As we interacted with the students and analyzed the results over the following months, it became clear that the most important outcome of the study was not so much what it told us about the effectiveness of the guide but rather how it helped clarify our understand- ing of what constitutes primary source literacy” (p. 411). Investigatory Foci We found that guide investigations could be characterized according to five central foci: usability (can students use the guides?); usage (do students use the guides?); satisfaction (do students like the guides?); utility (do students consider the guides useful?); and evidence of learning (are the guides effective tools for learning?). Though the latter two categories are most explicitly relevant to the scope of this review, the preceding foci were included when study authors directly tied approaches to findings associated with learning effectiveness. For example, Almeida and Tidal (2017) equated usability with learning by explicitly connecting “design features with cogni- tive practices” (p. 64); Barker and Hoffman (2021) concluded their review of the literature on usability studies by stating, “How well students are able to use guides has a direct impact on their ability to learn” (76); Smith (2007) suggested his meta-assessment model made it possible to associate web usage stats with student learning engagement, stating, “Ideally, it would be nice if everyone became fully engaged in each guide’s content each time they visited, but the analysis model is still applicable even if they do not” (p. 91); and Hansen (2014) called students’ perceptions “vital for developing [guides] into a successful learning tool” (p. 16). Fourteen (23.0%) of the studies had a singular focus (Baker, 2014; Barker & Hoffman, 2021; Cobus-Kuo et al., 2013; Courtois et al., 2005; Dotson, 2021; Griffin & Taylor, 2018; Hsieh et al., 2014; Lierman et al., 2019; Miles & Bergstrom, 2009; Miller, 2014; Rafferty, 2013; Slemons, 2013; Soskin & Eldblom, 1984; Thorngate & Hoden, 2017), where the remainder employed two or more, including one that integrated all five (Bowen, 2014). Investigations focusing on guide usage were the most common (n = 37), followed by utility (n = 35), satisfaction (n = 31), usability (n = 17), and evidence of learning (n = 15). Though mixing of investigatory foci is frequent throughout the included studies, not all areas of study are valued by all authors, and skepticism over other approaches is common. Griffin and Taylor (2018), for example, seem to argue against the controlled environment of usability studies in favor of gathering analytics data to understand “actual user patterns rather than idealized or hypothetical users” (p. 157). Similarly, Lee and Lowe (2018) criticized usability studies of guides as only gauging a student’s ability to navigate, ignoring learning, writing: students can apply filters in databases for scholarly sources by checking a box with- out knowing what a scholarly source is … the findings of this study demonstrate that database navigability alone is not sufficient to improve students’ learning experience as well as their interaction with the guide and resources linked from the guide (p. 223). Library Guide Educational Integrations Throughout the studies we reviewed, guides were introduced into educational settings in sev- eral ways. Most studies investigated guides created and delivered as online subject or course guides. Only five studies considered students’ use of print-based guides, two of which (Magi, 2003; Mahaffy, 2012) looked at differences between the two mediums. The use of guides to 826 College & Research Libraries September 2025 supplement library instruction was examined by several researchers (Archer et al., 2009; Han- sen, 2014; Hsieh et al., 2014; L. Lee et al., 2003; Leighton & May, 2013; Magi, 2003; Miller, 2014; Olshausen, 2018; Rafferty, 2013; Soskin & Eldblom, 1984; Wharton & Pritchard, 2020). Soskin and Eldblom (1984) conducted a study to determine the effectiveness of a “Guide to Writing the Term Paper” sheet that was designed to “partially fulfill the bibliographic instructional objective [of helping] students locate sufficient quality information on their industries” (p.13). After concluding from their literature search that embedded guides were more likely to be used, Leighton and May (2013) developed a survey instrument to determine the helpfulness of a guide that was created to support students in a business class. In tandem with research into the effectiveness of guides as supplements to instruction, many researchers devoted time to assessing how the placement of guides impacts students’ learning and use of library resources. Several (Daly, 2010; Dotson, 2021; Gibbons, 2003; Gilman et al., 2017; Murphy & Black, 2013; Pickens-French & Mcdonald, 2013; Wharton & Pritchard, 2020) explore the function and effectiveness of guides that are embedded into campus learn- ing management systems. In response to survey results suggesting library resources were underused, Duke University librarians looked to embedding guides into the campus learning management system in part because it “was obvious to librarians that students enrolled in courses with a research component could benefit from increased collaboration with librarians” (Daly, 2010, p. 209). In another study, Bowen (2012) uses responses to student survey data to argue that placing guides within the campus learning management system makes connections that “include improved learning and quality-of-research benefits to students, higher quality coursework turned in to instructors, and a maximized return on the investments a university makes in its library resources and its LMS” (p. 461). Participants and Populations Sample characteristics, including sample size, age, gender, or other demographic details of the participating populations in the studies, were inconsistently documented. Most offered only that their data came from “students,” or perhaps a mix of groups, such as undergraduates, graduates, and distance students. Fifteen studies involved students enrolled in specific courses or programs (Baker, 2014; Brewer et al., 2017; Chiware, 2014; Hansen, 2014; Hsieh et al., 2014; L. Lee et al., 2003; Leighton & May, 2013; Magi, 2003; Miller, 2014; Miner & Alexander, 2010; Mussell & Croft, 2013; Rafferty, 2013; Soskin & Eldblom, 1984; Stone et al., 2018; Tang & Tseng, 2014). Additional demographic characteristics were equally underreported. Eight (D. A. Becker et al., 2022; Bisalski et al., 2017; Bowen, 2014; Carey et al., 2020; Greenwell, 2016; Mussell & Croft, 2013; Scoulas, 2021; Soskin & Eldblom, 1984) offered details on the gender makeup of their participants, and two offered sample information regarding race or ethnicity (Carey et al., 2020; Scoulas, 2021). Several others purposely opted not to gather such details deeming them irrelevant (Hansen, 2014; Lauseng et al., 2021; Y. Y. Lee & Lowe, 2018), and one did not summa- rize sample demographics despite gathering them via their survey (Thorngate & Hoden, 2017). When sample sizes were provided, they ranged from five to 1,303, where smaller samples were more often from usability and qualitative studies involving interviews or focus groups, and larger samples captured data from student surveys. Eight of the 61 studies did not include any details on the number of participants in their study, however four of those were examina- tions of website traffic in which the populations were more generally associated with the college student population at large (Dotson, 2021; Griffin & Taylor, 2018; Slemons, 2013; Smith, 2007). Effectiveness of Academic Library Research Guides 827 Data Sources There were nine sources of data gathered or evaluated in the included studies (see Table 3). Most relied upon results from survey data (65.5%), either solely or in combination with other data sources. Quantitative data, such as from website traffic and test performance, were fre- quently considered alongside qualitative data from interviews and focus groups, indicating a preference towards data triangulation and mixed methods overall. Data were primarily gathered using self-developed instruments, where only three studies reported on validation or reliability measures (Almeida & Tidal, 2017; Greenwell, 2016; Stone et al., 2018), and five referred to using commercially developed or standardized instruments (Bowen et al., 2018; Gilman et al., 2017; Murphy & Black, 2013; Sharrar, 2017; Tang & Tseng, 2014). Ten studies used data sources to gather pre/post measures (Archer et al., 2009; Barker & Hoffman, 2021; Bowen, 2014; Dalton & Pan, 2014; Hansen, 2014; Hsieh et al., 2014; L. Lee et al., 2003; Magi, 2003; Sinkinson et al., 2012; Stone et al., 2018). Effectiveness Interpretations Study authors’ conclusions on the effectiveness of guides for learning varied, falling into four categories: positive, neutral, negative, or mixed (see Table 4). However, deciphering their interpretations of “effectiveness” proved challenging due to the broad scope of most investigations. Notably, few studies explicitly outlined their expectations for how guides might influ- ence student learning, or the potential benefits they might offer. Only six studies (9.8%) employed a priori hypotheses or assumptions to guide their inquiry (Brewer et al., 2017; Greenwell, 2016; Griffin & Taylor, 2018; Hsieh et al., 2014; Magi, 2003; Sharrar, 2017), while the remainder lacked clear benchmarks against which to assess impact. Of the 23 studies reporting positive findings, 17 were at least partially derived from affec- tive measures gathered via student surveys (Baker, 2014; D. A. Becker et al., 2022; Bowen, 2012; Daly, 2010; Gardner, 1977; Gibbons, 2003; Gilman et al., 2017; Greenwell, 2016; Lauseng et al., TABLE 3 Data Sources Identified in Library Guide Effectiveness Studies Data source Total studies Single data source Pre/Post Survey 40 16 5 Website traffic 22 5 1 Test performance 17 2 5 Usability testing 10 5 1 Assignment performance 7 0 1 Interviews 6 1 0 Citation analysis 4 1 0 Focus group 4 0 0 Content analysis 1 0 0 Total 111 30 13 Note. Total studies value exceeds N=61 as most studies used multiple data sources TABLE 4 Overall Findings Relating to Guide Effectiveness Directional N Positive 23 (37.7%) Neutral 9 (14.8%) Negative 3 (4.9%) Mixed 26 (42.6%) Total 61 828 College & Research Libraries September 2025 2021; Li, 2016; Little, 2010; Metter & Willis, 1993; Paul et al., 2020; Rothstein, 1989; Sharrar, 2017; Stone et al., 2018; Wharton & Pritchard, 2020). When asked, students in these studies reported high satisfaction with guide content, or indicated that guides were helpful, relevant, or useful for their academic needs. In these studies, rates of satisfaction were resoundingly high. For example, Rothstein’s (1989) study reported that 90% of the 77 survey respondents were satis- fied with the research guides developed for their specific topics, and Daly’s (2010) reported survey results found that “89 percent of the 106 respondents reported that course-specific guides were ‘somewhat useful’ or ‘very useful’ for their research” (p. 212). In Greenwell’s (2016) study, the pre/post testing data yielded no significant differences, and these results were not considered in the discussion section. Rather, the author selected student survey results as evidence of guide effectiveness, where 83.9% of the 112 students surveyed reported that the guide was valuable and made it easier for them to locate resources for their assignments. Not all studies of student perceptions reported such positive results, however (Courtois et al., 2005; Mubofu & Malekani, 2021; Mussell & Croft, 2013; Ouellelte, 2011; Pickens-French & Mcdonald, 2013; Scoulas, 2021). Courtois et al. (2005), for example, embedded a single question—“was this guide helpful?”—into all library guides for one semester. Of the 210 anonymous responses gathered, 52% rated guides as “Somewhat” to “Very Helpful,” while 40% rated them as “Not Helpful” or “A Little Helpful.” Some differentiation in satisfaction levels according to student characteristics were also revealed, such as in survey results from Scoulas (2021) suggesting that STEM students valued guides significantly less than non-STEM students, and nearly 70% of 33 distance students surveyed by Mubofu and Malekani (2021) study expressed feeling neutral or dissatisfied with research guides overall. In examining the data presented regarding user perceptions, we found that across several studies, students frequently expressed high satisfaction with the guides while simultaneously indicating their own limited engagement with or need for them (Bisalski et al., 2017; Chiware, 2014; Leighton & May, 2013; Magi, 2003; Ouellelte, 2011; Rothstein, 1989; Sharrar, 2017; Tom- lin et al., 2017). In Chiware’s (2014) study, for example, though guide ratings were generally positive, a “significant number of students reported that they simply felt they did not need them” (p. 31). For example, Sharrar’s (2017) summative usability study recorded the highest overall mean of 5.96 on a seven point Likert scale based on 47 undergraduate student survey responses to “It would be a wonderful idea for undergraduates to use library course pages,” whereas questions regarding students’ own intent to use guides received the lowest mean score of 4.49. Similarly, in Rothstein’s (1989) survey, the students who responded negatively to research guides developed for them through a Term Paper Clinic still advocated for the service: “even those few students who had some doubts or denials about its value to them- selves felt that the Clinic should be continued on behalf of others” (p. 279). Usage reports led three study authors to reconsider the effectiveness and overall purpose of their guides (Griffin & Taylor, 2018; Mahaffy, 2012; Mussell & Croft, 2013). Despite early assumptions that student researchers were independently discovering and engaging with guide content, Griffin and Taylor (2018) failed to find evidence of this when exploring use. In- terpreting high bounce rates as students hurrying to accomplish specific tasks, they advocated against “verbose, exhaustive library guides harkening back to the pathfinders of old” (p. 158). Four additional studies shared similar guidance in advocating against the type of pathfinder guides that point students towards lengthy lists of resources (Baker, 2014; Hansen, 2014; Hintz et al., 2010; Leighton & May, 2013). In Baker’s (2014) comparative study of pathfinder guides Effectiveness of Academic Library Research Guides 829 versus more instructional ones, they were surprised to find that most of the students enrolled in two First-Year Experience courses “reported a more positive learning experience with the tutorial guide and they were able to complete the assignment more quickly and with better results” (p. 114). This was echoed in Hintz et al.’s (2010) findings, where their survey of 55 students indicated “that they did not want to simply be pointed to a resource; they wanted to be told how best to make use of it” (p. 46). Low evidence of use or engagement was not always interpreted as a need to change. Although the earliest study included in this review discontinued its pathfinder program due to low use (Gardner, 1977), several remained optimistic that an audience would be found (Dotson, 2021; Hsieh et al., 2014; Leighton & May, 2013; Magi, 2003; Miner & Alexander, 2010; Murphy & Black, 2013). This hope that students’ curiosity could someday be piqued by guide content was relied upon as justification to continue investing tremendous amounts of time in developing and maintaining large numbers of guides. For example, despite much lower use than anticipated of the library guides created for 460 courses, Dotson (2021) concluded, “the hope is students will see specific items relevant to their course and explore more. They will use the ebooks and/or videos to better understand concepts and to explore search tools to go beyond these sources … Perhaps students will even bring up these sources with their instruc- tor” (p. 256). Students’ struggle with or resistance to effectively using, applying, or transferring guide- based content was documented in several studies (Bisalski et al., 2017; Griffin & Taylor, 2018; Hansen, 2014; Magi, 2003; Mahaffy, 2012; Ouellelte, 2011; Soskin & Eldblom, 1984). In one study (Hansen, 2014), post-test data showed the international student participants were aware of expectations surrounding use of scholarly sources and could easily locate them, but unintui- tive database interfaces and cumbersome search practices, including the use of Boolean logic, created frustrating barriers. In the words of one student, “‘Before I [did] the library research, I only use the Google to do the research because it is very comfortable and convenient, espe- cially using the Wikipedia. But after I knew how to use the library research, our teacher just ask us to use the library research and it’s too difficult for an international student’” (p. 66). In another study, despite substantial time spent training students on course guide resources, when analyzing the number of sources cited in their subsequent research projects, Magi (2003) discovered that most students “relied heavily on free World Wide Web sites not demonstrated or recommended by the librarian” (p. 683). Soskin and Eldblom (1984), in their examination of 23 economics students’ papers gathered during one fall semester, concluded that while the papers receiving higher scores cited more resources, it was the students’ ability to analyze the information that influenced their overall score (p. 18). They also expressed concern that the students’ skills transfer would be inhibited by the search strategies outlined in the guides, writing, “Although the flow-chart type of guide has the advantage of being economical of students’ time, it has the potential disadvantage of prescribing a search strategy so narrow that generalization to future information seeking may be difficult” (p. 20). Limitations Identified in the Studies Twenty (32.8%) of the 61 studies did not identify any limitations or weaknesses regarding their research design or conduct that could influence outcomes and interpretations of the research. Thirty-three (54.1%) expressed limitations relating to the sample used for the research, with 16 studies identifying limitations due to a small participant pool (D. Becker et al., 2017; D. A. 830 College & Research Libraries September 2025 Becker et al., 2022; Bisalski et al., 2017; Bowen, 2014; Bowen et al., 2018; Brewer et al., 2017; Carey et al., 2020; Cobus-Kuo et al., 2013; Gerrish & Martin, 2023; Hintz et al., 2010; Lauseng et al., 2021; L. Lee et al., 2003; Little, 2010; Mahaffy, 2012; Slemons, 2013; Stone et al., 2018). Other limitations included experimenter effect (Lierman et al., 2019), poor study design (Courtois et al., 2005), participants failing to follow instructions (Hsieh et al., 2014), and results being non-generalizable due to several circumstances (Bowen, 2014; Mubofu & Malekani, 2021; Ouellelte, 2011; Rothstein, 1989; Thorngate & Hoden, 2017). Discussion What are the IL Related Learning Outcomes Associated with Guides? When we began this study, we expected that most learning outcomes associated with guides would be directly aligned with guide objectives, and therefore reflect traditional IL behav- iors, skills, and dispositions around information acquisition and use. For example, for subject guides introducing students to disciplinary research practices, we expected to see learning outcomes surrounding dispositional knowledge acquisition. For course guides created to support completion of research assignments, we anticipated learning outcomes indicating how well guides assisted students in this work, including details on specific resources and strategies. While a smaller but noteworthy group of studies did present learning outcomes on knowledge and skills development related to IL, the majority focused instead on student satisfaction, preferences, and engagement. Although understanding students’ experiences remains crucial, it should be comple- mented by assessments of how guides translate into tangible learning outcomes more directly relevant to learning goals of guide creators. This could involve incorporating IL frameworks, utilizing learning objectives aligned with specific courses, or employing knowledge-based assessments beyond simple satisfaction surveys. That nearly a quarter of studies lack an ex- plicit theoretical foundation—and even fewer point to professional frameworks such as the ACRL Information Literacy Framework—is striking, and points to the difficulties practitioners continue to face in trying to apply and assess IL concepts overall. Ultimately, a richer under- standing of guides’ influence on both immediate user experiences and long-term learning can be achieved through a more nuanced approach to outcome evaluation, embracing both affective and knowledge-based measures. How are Guides Evaluated and Assessed? There is no one way to evaluate learning, and the broad spectrum of approaches to guide assessment featured in this review reflects that. For the most part, guide evaluations are ex- ploratory and open-ended. While study authors value mixed methods, often triangulating qualitative student feedback with quantitative website traffic statistics, very few control groups or baseline measures are used as comparators. Data are most often gathered to help practi- tioners quickly assess guide use and usefulness to students, where data are used to identify areas needing improvement. As such, evaluation practices are most often quick and simple, and rely on data that are easy to access, obtain, and understand: Surveys capture learner preferences and attitudes, web statistics reveal use and interaction, and usability observa- tions are largely used to refine guide design. That most studies were published 2010 and later aligns with the transition to online technologies, including the 2007 release of SpringShare’s LibGuides platform (Lilly, 2022). Where assessing use of physical pathfinders was limited to Effectiveness of Academic Library Research Guides 831 observational and circulation data, access to web traffic data presented easy access to gauge site visits, resource selection, and user engagement. Of note is that guide evaluation often does not require participation or support from course instructors. This is a pattern that is seen in the practice and implementation of guides within educational settings in these studies overall: although several studies provide de- tails demonstrating highly participatory collaborations with course instructors, most of the studies indicate practices that occur with little to no instructor support or even awareness of the study. Though we did not gather enough information from the studies during our charting to fully characterize the nature and depth of librarian/instructor partnerships, the invisibility of guide assessment paints an uncomfortable picture that also keeps librarians at an arm’s length from data that could otherwise be used to measure more higher order thinking skills. Given the small number of studies that identified any source of funding, it’s likely that this lack of financial support signals other resource barriers inhibiting more rigorous investigations. This is not a limitation unique to studies of library guides, but rather a com- mon barrier experienced by librarian practitioners (Clapton, 2010; Smigielski et al., 2014). In Oakleaf’s (2010) critique of library assessment research that formed the basis of the Value of Academic Libraries project, she acknowledged that while conducting rigorous research is out of reach for many practitioners, rigorous assessment is still critical and “should be well planned, be based on clear outcomes …, and use appropriate methods” (p. 31). Assessment activities are clearly valued within the profession, yet without funds, time, resources, and methodological training, it is difficult to conduct this work. Even a small amount of funding could help offset barriers to conducting research aimed at enhancing pedagogical successes. What Does the Evidence Say? This scoping review paints a complex picture of the effectiveness of library research guides in supporting student learning. While a significant number of studies highlight positive user perceptions, with students expressing satisfaction and finding guides helpful or relevant, the interpretation of “effectiveness” remains ambiguous due to the lack of clearly defined expec- tations or benchmarks for impact assessment. Notably, only a small portion of the studies employed specific hypotheses or assumptions, leaving the majority without clear measures to evaluate the guides’ influence. This ambiguity is further compounded by the fact that very few study authors revealed limitations affecting their studies. Though guide evaluations are primarily conducted to understand students’ learning ex- periences in highly specific circumstances, effectiveness findings are often shared in ways that suggest broad applicability. Unfortunately, underreporting of sample demographics and study conditions poses a significant challenge to the robustness and generalizability of these studies. Without details on the participants in the study, it becomes difficult to understand whether the findings are being associated with all student populations or only specific subgroups, such as first-year undergraduates or graduate students. Without this crucial information, the findings remain incomplete and their applicability uncertain. To understand the impact of guides, researchers must strive for more comprehensive reporting of sample demographics, allowing for more nuanced interpretations and targeted interventions to cater to the diverse needs of student learners. 832 College & Research Libraries September 2025 Limitations Although we did not exclude non-English language publications in our search queries, our search terms and the sources of information searched disproportionately privileged English publications. While two non-English language documents provided abstracts in English which we identified as potentially relevant, due to our research team’s own language limitations we made the decision to exclude these articles rather than pursue translation services. We did not want to misrepresent this study’s scope given our own capabilities and the vastly incomplete representation of global literature that could therefore be discovered or considered. Additional limitations stem from the nature of scoping review methods, especially the possibility that relevant publications were possibly missed or omitted, and that critical appraisal of studies and more focused analysis of study findings are necessary to understand the effectiveness of guides for learning. Future Directions Focused Assessment of Learning Outcomes While it is evident from these studies that guides are used to scale, supplement, and even substitute for librarian instruction, it is unclear what learning outcomes are best supported through these tools. Many studies in this review gathered students’ feedback regarding guide helpfulness and satisfaction but given how individualized the guides are in these studies, more work is needed to determine what is or is not particularly helpful or satisfying about guides. Without in-depth exploration, it is challenging to understand what elements of research guides are especially beneficial in most contexts. If a student found a guide helpful, what exactly was helpful? If students report being satisfied with a library guide that was created with an instructional goal of increasing students’ critical evaluation skills, is their satisfaction enough to conclude that the goal was achieved? Interrogation of What Constitutes Best Practices Without clarity, assertions surrounding best practices cannot be validated as there is little to no consensus regarding the effectiveness of these guides for meeting their established learning outcomes. Though we emphasize the need for improved assessment practices and greater at- tention to the use and impact of learning outcomes in this work, caution is also needed against developing cultures of bean counting, self-surveillance, and perpetual audit. Profession-wide decreed value agendas turn our energy toward anxiously, and often individually, demonstrat- ing value rather than collectively contributing to student learning and uplifting librarian labor (Pagowsky, 2021). Nicholson provides an astute critique of value agendas in librarianship, in stating that “Audit culture creates a misalignment or a gap between our aspirations and our approaches. For example, we continue to rely heavily on quantitative methods, even when these may not be the most appropriate, because they are the most expedient” (2017, p. 17). Instead, Nicholson encourages library professionals to spend “more time inquiring into how students are learning and changing as a result of the time they spend with us and less into their customer satisfaction with these interactions” (2017, p. 19). Deeper Examination of the Role of Guide Integration in Educational Settings While this review did identify how guides were integrated—such as those embedded within learning management systems or used as supplemental to librarian instruction—it did not examine the relationship between educational integration and learning effectiveness. While Effectiveness of Academic Library Research Guides 833 guides do offer libraries value in terms of scaling and reach, future research should focus on understanding what the limitations are regarding guides as standalone learning tools and whether or in which circumstances librarian instructional presence makes a difference. Conclusions The findings from this scoping review of guide effectiveness studies underscores the enormous presence these tools continue to have within academic libraries. The broad range of instruc- tional applications, subjects covered, content included, and design features tested reveals the many, and varied, ways that practitioners have relied upon these guides in their teaching. The data sources relied upon in these studies indicate a valuing of student perspectives and experiences but restrict much of what we can know regarding the effectiveness of guides for deeper learning. More work is needed to identify and understand the factors contributing to students’ learning, especially regarding specific populations and user groups and their engagement with and application of the information provided within the guides. Funding This project was funded by the University of Nebraska Foundation Layman New Directions award. Acknowledgements The authors would like to especially thank: the Evidence Synthesis Institute for giving us in- spiration and methodological facility; the ACRL Evidence Synthesis Methods Interest Group for pairing us with Amy Riegelman who mentored us through the project’s framework devel- opment; our undergraduate student intern, Cecan Porter, for her tireless efforts, enthusiasm for learning, and impeccable attention to detail throughout several stages of the review; the ACRL Education and Behavioral Sciences Section Virtual Research Forum for giving us an opportunity to share our process and progress to a national audience; Fernando Rios, Leslie Delserone, and Joan Konecky, for providing guidance in support of our protocol registration; and Amy Riegelman, Margy MacMillan, and Elizabeth Kline for their expert review of our article draft. References Almeida, N., & Tidal, J. (2017). Mixed methods not mixed messages: Improving LibGuides with student usability data. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 12(4), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8CD4T Archer, J., Hanlon, A. M., & Levine, J. A. (2009). Investigating primary source literacy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(5), 410–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2009.06.017 Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 Baker, R. L. (2014). Designing LibGuides as instructional tools for critical thinking and effective online learn- ing. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 8(3/4), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332 90X.2014.944423 Barker, A. E. G., & Hoffman, A. T. (2021). Student-centered design: Creating LibGuides students can actually use. College & Research Libraries, 82(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.82.1.75 Becker, D. A., Arendse, J., Tshetsha, V., Davids, Z., & Kiva-Johnson, V. (2022). The development of LibGuides at Cape Peninsula University of Technology Libraries and the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on their usage. IFLA Journal, 48(1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352211046025 Becker, D., Hartle, H., & Mhlauli, G. (2017). Assessment of use and quality of library services, accessibility and facilities by students at Cape Peninsula University of Technology. South African Journal of Libraries & Informa- tion Science, 83(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.7553/83-1-1642 https://doi.org/10.18438/B8CD4T https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2009.06.017 https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2014.944423 https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2014.944423 https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.82.1.75 https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352211046025 https://doi.org/10.7553/83-1-1642 834 College & Research Libraries September 2025 Bisalski, H. C., Helms, M. M., & Whitesell, M. (2017). Preparing undergraduate students for the major field test in business. Journal of Education for Business, 92(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2016.1261791 Bowen, A. (2012). A LibGuides presence in a Blackboard environment. Reference Services Review, 40(3), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321211254698 Bowen, A. (2014). LibGuides and web-based library guides in comparison: Is there a pedagogical advantage? Journal of Web Librarianship, 8(2), 147–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2014.903709 Bowen, A., Ellis, J., & Chaparro, B. (2018). Long nav or short nav? Student responses to two different naviga- tional interface designs in LibGuides version 2. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(3), 391–403. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.03.002 Brewer, L., Rick, H., & Grondin, K. A. (2017). Improving digital library experiences and support with online research guides. Online Learning, 21(3), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i3.1237 Carey, J., Pathak, A., & Johnson, S. C. (2020). Use, perceptions, and awareness of LibGuides among undergradu- ate and graduate health professions students. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 15(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29653 Chiware, M. (2014). The efficacy of course-specific library guides to support essay writing at the University of Cape Town. South African Journal of Libraries & Information Science, 80(2), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.7553/80-2-1522 Cobus-Kuo, L., Gilmour, R., & Dickson, P. (2013). Bringing in the experts: Library research guide usability testing in a computer science class. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 8(4), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.18438/ B8GP5W Courtois, M. P., Higgins, M. E., & Kapur, A. (2005). Was this guide helpful? Users’ perceptions of subject guides. Reference Services Review, 33(2), 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320510597381 Craane, B., Dijkstra, P. U., Stappaerts, K., & De Laat, A. (2012). Methodological quality of a systematic review on physical therapy for temporomandibular disorders: Influence of hand search and quality scales. Clinical Oral Investigations, 16(1), 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0490-y Dalton, M., & Pan, R. (2014). Snakes or ladders? Evaluating a LibGuides pilot at UCD Library. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(5), 515–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.05.006 Daly, E. (2010). Embedding library resources into learning management systems: A way to reach Duke undergrads at their points of need. College & Research Libraries News, 71(4), 208–212. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.71.4.8358 DeFrain, E., Sult, L., & Pagowsky, N. (2022). Effectiveness of academic library research guides for building college students’ information literacy skills: A scoping review protocol. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2SMQ4 Dotson, D. S. (2021). LibGuides gone viral: A giant LibGuides project during remote working. Science & Technol- ogy Libraries, 40(3), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2021.1884169 Dunsmore, C. (2002). A qualitative study of web-mounted pathfinders created by academic business libraries. Libri, 52(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/LIBR.2002.137 Fagerheim, B., Lundstrom, K., Davis, E., & Cochran, D. (2017). Extending our reach: Automatic integration of course and subject guides. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 56(3), 180–188. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.56n3.180 Gardner, J. J. (1977). Pathfinders, Library. In A. Kent, H. Lancour, J. E. Daily, & W. Z. Nasri (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information science (Vol. 21, pp. 468–473). Dekker. Gardois, P., Colombi, N., Grillo, G., & Villanacci, M. C. (2012). Implementation of Web 2.0 services in academic, medical and research libraries: A scoping review. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 29(2), 90–109. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2012.00984.x German, E., Grassian, E., & LeMire, S. (2017). LibGuides for instruction A service design point of view from an academic library. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 56(3), 162-167. Gerrish, T., & Martin, S. (2023). Student preferences for reference services at a remote biological station library. Portal: Libraries & the Academy, 23(4), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2023.a908695 Gibbons, S. (2003). Building upon the MyLibrary concept to better meet the information needs of college students. D-Lib Magazine, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1045/march2003-gibbons Gilman, N. V., Sagàs, J., Camper, M., & Norton, A. P. (2017). A faculty-librarian collaboration success story: Imple- menting a teach-the-teacher library and information literacy instruction model in a first-year agricultural science course. Library Trends, 65(3), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2017.0005 Goodsett, M. (2020). Best practices for teaching and assessing critical thinking in information literacy online learning objects. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(5), 102163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102163 Greenwell, S. (2016). Using the I-LEARN model for information literacy instruction. Journal of Information Literacy, 10(1), 67–85. Griffin, M., & Taylor, T. I. (2018). Employing analytics to guide a data-driven review of LibGuides. Journal of Web Librarianship, 12(3), 147–159. Hansen, L. A. (2014). Second-language writer and instructor perceptions of the effectiveness of a curriculum-integrated https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2016.1261791 https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321211254698 https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2014.903709 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.03.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.03.002 https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i3.1237 https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29653 https://doi.org/10.7553/80-2-1522 https://doi.org/10.18438/B8GP5W https://doi.org/10.18438/B8GP5W https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320510597381 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0490-y https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.05.006 https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.71.4.8358 https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2SMQ4 https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2021.1884169 https://doi.org/10.1515/LIBR.2002.137 https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.56n3.180 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2012.00984.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2012.00984.x https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2023.a908695 https://doi.org/10.1045/march2003-gibbons https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2017.0005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102163 Effectiveness of Academic Library Research Guides 835 research skills library guide [M.A., The University of Utah]. Harbeson, E. L. (1972). Teaching reference and bibliography: The pathfinder approach. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 13(2), 111. https://doi.org/10.2307/40322211 Head, A., & Eisenberg, M. (2010). Assigning inquiry: How handouts for research assignments guide today’s college students (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2281494). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2281494 Hemmig, W. (2005). Online pathfinders: Toward an experience-centered model. Reference Services Review, 33(1), 66–87. Hennesy, C., & Adams, A. L. (2021). Measuring actual practices: A computational analysis of LibGuides in academic libraries. Journal of Web Librarianship, 15(4), 219–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2021.1964014 Hintz, K., Farrar, P., Eshghi, S., Sobol, B., Naslund, J.-A., Lee, T., Stephens, T., & McCauley, A. (2010). Letting students take the lead: A user-centered approach to evaluating subject guides. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 5(4), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.18438/B87C94 Hoffmann, T. C., Glasziou, P. P., Boutron, I., Milne, R., Perera, R., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Barbour, V., Macdonald, H., Johnston, M., Lamb, S. E., Dixon-Woods, M., McCulloch, P., Wyatt, J. C., Chan, A.-W., & Michie, S. (2014). Better reporting of interventions: Template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 348, g1687. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687 Hsieh, M. L., Dawson, P. H., Hofmann, M. A., Titus, M. L., & Carlin, M. T. (2014). Four pedagogical approaches in helping students learn information literacy skills. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(3/4), 234–246. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.03.012 Jackson, R., & Stacy-Bates, K. K. (2016). The enduring landscape of online subject research guides. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 55(3), 219. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.55n3.219 Kline, E., Wallace, N., Sult, L., & Hagedon, M. (2017). Embedding the library in the LMS: Is it a good investment for your organization’s information literacy program? In T. Maddison & M. Kumaran (Eds.), Distributed Learning (pp. 255–269). Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100598-9.00014-3 Lauseng, D. L., Howard, C., Scoulas, J. M., & Berry, A. (2021). Assessing online library guide use and open edu- cational resource (oer) potential: An evidence-based decision-making approach. Journal of Web Librarianship, 15(3), 128–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2021.1935396 Lee, J., Hayden, K. A., Ganshorn, H., & Pethrick, H. (2021). A Content analysis of systematic review online library guides. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 16(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29819 Lee, L., Hime, L., & Dominicis, E. (2003). Just-in-time course guides. Florida Libraries, 46(2), 8–10. Lee, Y. Y., & Lowe, M. S. (2018). Building positive learning experiences through pedagogical research guide design. Journal of Web Librarianship, 12(4), 205–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2018.1499453 Leighton, H. V., & May, D. (2013). The library course page and instruction: Perceived helpfulness and use among students. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 18(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2013.804019 Li, Y. (2016). Using new venture competitions to link the library and business students. Qualitative & Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 5(3), 551–559. Lierman, A., Scott, B., Warren, M., & Turner, C. (2019). Testing for transition: Evaluating the usability of research guides around a platform migration. Information Technology & Libraries, 38(4), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.6017/ ital.v38i4.11169 Lilly. (2022, May 2). 15 Years of Springshare! The Springy Share. https://blog.springshare.com/2022/05/02/15-years- of-springshare/ Little, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory and library research guides. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 15(1), 53–63. Magi, T. J. (2003). What’s best for students? Comparing the effectiveness of a traditional print pathfinder and a web-based research tool. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(4), 671–686. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2003.0090 Mahaffy, M. (2012). Student use of library research guides following library instruction. Communications in In- formation Literacy, 6(2), 202–213. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2013.6.2.129 Metter, E., & Willis, E. (1993). Creating a handbook for an academic library: Rationale and process. Research Strategies, 11(4), 32–220. Miles, M. J., & Bergstrom, S. J. (2009). Classification of library resources by subject on the library website: Is there an optimal number of subject labels? Information Technology & Libraries, 28(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.6017/ ital.v28i1.3167 Miller, L. N. (2014). First year medical students use library resources emphasized during instruction sessions. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 9(1), 48–50. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8F316 Miner, J., & Alexander, R. (2010). LibGuides in political science: Improving student access, research, and infor- mation literacy. Journal of Information Literacy, 4(1), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.11645/4.1.1467 Mubofu, C., & Malekani, A. (2021). Accessibility of library resources and support services by distance learn- ers. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 15(4), 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332 https://doi.org/10.2307/40322211 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2281494 https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2021.1964014 https://doi.org/10.18438/B87C94 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.03.012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.03.012 https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.55n3.219 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100598-9.00014-3 https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2021.1935396 https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29819 https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2018.1499453 https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2013.804019 https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v38i4.11169 https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v38i4.11169 https://blog.springshare.com/2022/05/02/15-years-of-springshare/ https://blog.springshare.com/2022/05/02/15-years-of-springshare/ https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2003.0090 https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2013.6.2.129 https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v28i1.3167 https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v28i1.3167 https://doi.org/10.18438/B8F316 https://doi.org/10.11645/4.1.1467 https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2021.2021345 836 College & Research Libraries September 2025 90X.2021.2021345 Murphy, S. A., & Black, E. L. (2013). Embedding guides where students learn: Do design choices and librar- ian behavior make a difference? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(6), 528–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. acalib.2013.06.007 Mussell, J., & Croft, R. (2013). Discovery layers and the distance student: Online search habits of students. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 7(1/2), 18–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2012.705561 Nicholson, K. P. (2017, October 26). The “Value Agenda”: Negotiating a Path Between Compliance and Critical Practice [[Keynote]]. Canadian Libraries Assessment Workshop (CLAW), University of Victoria. Oakleaf, M. J. (2010). The value of academic libraries: A comprehensive research review and report. Association of Col- lege and Research Libraries, American Library Association. Olshausen, M. (2018). A statistical approach to assessing research guide use at Central Washington University. PNLA Quarterly, 82(3/4), 23–34. Ouellelte, D. (2011). Subject guides in academic libraries: A user-centered study of uses and perceptions. Les Guides Par Sujets Dans Les Bibliothèques Académiques: Une Étude Des Utilisations et Des Perceptions Centrée Sur l’utilisateur, 35(4), 436–451. Pagowsky, N. (2021). The contested one-shot: Deconstructing power structures to imagine new futures. College & Research Libraries. https://doi-org.libproxy.unl.edu/10.5860/crl.82.3.300 Paschke-Wood, J., Dubinsky, E., & Sult, L. (2020). Creating a student-centered alternative to research guides: Developing the infrastructure to support novice learners. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. Paul, S., Wright, L. B., & Clevenger-Schmertzing, L. (2020). Going the distance: Flipped classrooms and the research appointment. Southeastern Librarian, 68(3), 3–13. Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Khalil, H., Larsen, P., Marnie, C., Pollock, D., Tricco, A. C., & Munn, Z. (2022). Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 20(4), 953–968. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-21-00242 Pickens-French, K., & Mcdonald, K. (2013). Changing trenches, changing tactics: A library’s frontline redesign in a new cms. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 7(1/2), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.10 80/1533290X.2012.705613 Rafferty, R. S. (2013). The impact of library instruction: Do first-year medical students use library resources spe- cifically highlighted during instructional sessions? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 101(3), 213–217. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.3.011 Rothstein, S. (1989). Point of need/maximum service: An experiment in library instruction. Reference Librarian, 25–26, 253–284. Scoulas, J. M. (2021). STEM undergraduate students: Library use, perceptions and GPA. Performance Measurement & Metrics, 22(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-04-2020-0021 Sharrar, G. S. (2017). Are course pages useful? Getting beyond implementation and usability. UNC Chapel Hill Theses, MP4449–MP4449. Singal, A. G., Higgins, P. D. R., & Waljee, A. K. (2014). A primer on effectiveness and efficacy trials. Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology, 5(1), e45. https://doi.org/10.1038/ctg.2013.13 Sinkinson, C., Alexander, S., Hicks, A., & Kahn, M. (2012). Guiding design: Exposing librarian and student mental models of research guides. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 12(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2012.0008 Slemons, M. H. (2013). Design standards for LibGuides: Does better design lead to greater use? [Master’s, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]. Smith, C. H. (2007). Meta-assessment of online research guides usage. Reference Librarian, 47(1), 79–93. https:// doi.org/10.1300/J120v47n97_08 Soskin, M. D., & Eldblom, N. (1984). Integrating the term paper into economics courses at liberal arts colleges: Industry case studies papers at SUNY-Potsdam (63454646; ED246732; pp. 1–30). Stewart, C. (2022). Future states of the research library. 303, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.29242/rli.303.1 Stone, S. M., Sara Lowe, M., & Maxson, B. K. (2018). Does course guide design impact student learning? College & Undergraduate Libraries, 25(3), 280–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2018.1482808 Tang, Y., & Tseng, H. W. (2014). Distance students’ attitude toward library help seeking. Journal of Academic Li- brarianship, 40(3/4), 307–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.04.008 Taylor, A., Nelson, J., O’Donnell, S., Davies, E., & Hillary, J. (2022). The skills imperative 2035: What does the literature tell us about essential skills most needed for work? National Foundation for Educational Research. Thomas, J., Kneale, D., McKenzie, J. E., Brennan, S. E., & Soumyadeep, B. (2023). Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address. In J. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. Page, & V. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.4. Cochrane. https://www. training.cochrane.org/handbook https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2021.2021345 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.06.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.06.007 https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2012.705561 https://doi-org.libproxy.unl.edu/10.5860/crl.82.3.300 https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-21-00242 https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2012.705613 https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2012.705613 https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.3.011 https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-04-2020-0021 https://doi.org/10.1038/ctg.2013.13 https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2012.0008 https://doi.org/10.1300/J120v47n97_08 https://doi.org/10.1300/J120v47n97_08 https://doi.org/10.29242/rli.303.1 https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2018.1482808 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.04.008 https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook Effectiveness of Academic Library Research Guides 837 Thorngate, S., & Hoden, A. (2017). Exploratory usability testing of user interface options in LibGuides 2. College & Research Libraries, 78(6), 844–861. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.6.844 Tomlin, N., Tewell, E., Mullins, K., & Dent, V. (2017). In their own voices: An ethnographic perspective on stu- dent use of library information sources. Journal of Library Administration, 57(6), 631–650. https://doi.org/10.1 080/01930826.2017.1340776 Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., K. O’Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., D. J. Peters, M., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., A. Akl, E., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., G. Wilson, M., Garritty, C., … E. Straus, S. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 Vassar, M., Atakpo, P., & Kash, M. J. (2016). Manual search approaches used by systematic reviewers in dermatol- ogy. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 104(4), 302–304. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.009 Vileno, L. (2007). From paper to electronic, the evolution of pathfinders: A review of the literature. Reference Services Review, 35(3), 434–451. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320710774300 Wharton, L., & Pritchard, M. (2020). A successful long-term relationship: Three years of LTI integrations in Can- vas. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 32(4), 286–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2020.1821993 Wineburg, S., Breakstone, J., McGrew, S., Smith, M. D., & Ortega, T. (2022). Lateral reading on the open Internet: A district-wide field study in high school government classes. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi. org/10.1037/edu0000740 https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.6.844 https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2017.1340776 https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2017.1340776 https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.009 https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320710774300 https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2020.1821993 https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000740 https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000740 838 College & Research Libraries September 2025 Appendix A Eligibility Criteria Include: 1. Study includes an explicit or implied research question regarding the effectiveness of academic library research guides for college student learning. 2. The research guide must have been directly developed or compiled by an academic librarian or under the oversight of an academic library program or initiative. 3. Empirical data must have been gathered as part of the study’s assessment of research guide efficacy or effectiveness. 4. The study population must include college students and provide learning outcomes- related data drawn from or about this population. 5. We are interested in all studies regardless of publication date. 6. It includes explicit or implied learning outcomes relating to any model or operation- alization of information literacy. 7. There are no limitations on study design or study type. Study types will include ex- perimental and observational (quasi-experimental, observational, case studies, non- quasi-experimental survey-based) primary studies. These can include peer reviewed articles and high-quality grey literature (e.g., dissertations, white papers, reports, conference proceedings, posters); 8. We will not actively limit results to any language. Exclude: 1. A research guide cannot be identified as the primary intervention. Excluded from this study would be those in which a research guide is implemented or assessed as part of a broader suite of educational offerings, and the impact of the guide therefore cannot be understood. 2. Excluded from this review are studies investigating the usability or user experience of research guides as related to their functional design, in which no measures relating to student learning are provided. 3. No student-related data are gathered or analyzed. Excluded from this review are studies in which librarians or instructors comprise the sample population and student data were not gathered or assessed. 4. Non-empirical research, such as reflections, perspectives, editorials, opinion pieces, best practices, or professional guidance materials. 5. No sufficient information to understand the research guide’s implementation as an intervention, or how its effectiveness for learning was defined or assessed is offered. Effectiveness of Academic Library Research Guides 839 RQ 1: IL learning outcomes associated with guides RQ 2: how guides are evaluated RQ 3: evidence shared Study purpose Outcomes measured Investigatory foci Guide integration N Population Data sources Findings Almeida & Tidal, 2017 Identify student design and organizational preferences for guides design and learning modality preferences Usability; Satisfaction Print-based, Subject guide 10 students in two- & four-year programs Usability testing; interviews Neutral No best layout identified from users Archer et al., 2009 Evaluate utility of research guide for primary source literacy knowledge of primary source literacy Usability; Evidence of learning Supplemental to library instruction, subject guide 17 undergraduates from different departments Pre/Post survey; usability testing Neutral minimal improvement in students’ pre/post- questionnaire definitions of primary sources; students seemed confused over purpose of guides Baker, 2014 Compare student preferences for pathfinder or tutorial style guides design, content, and organizational preferences Satisfaction Course guide N/A undergraduate students from 2 first-year experience sections Survey Positive students preferred tutorial guide and self-reported improved learning experience Barker & Hoffman, 2021 Identify student content and design preferences for guides design, content, and organizational preferences Usability Subject guide 18-40 undergraduate students Pre/Post usability testing Positive design updates based on first card sort showed improvements Becker et al., 2017 Determine if and how students engage with the library as part of their studies and determine how well the library supports the academic activities of students Use and awareness of resources; frequency of use Usage; Satisfaction; Utility Subject guide 394 Faculty, grad students and majority undergraduate students Web stats; interviews; survey Mixed Unaware of guides in survey, but use data shows that the guides were being accessed Becker et al., 2022 Overview of institutional LibGuide implementation; assessment of whether creating LibGuides supported the information needs of students students’ perceptions and reported use of guide Usage; Satisfaction; Utility Subject guide 28 completed online questionnaire 13 for follow up interview Survey; focus group Positive Most students reported library guide to be useful Appendix B Extraction Table Aligned With Research Questions 840 College & Research Libraries September 2025 RQ 1: IL learning outcomes associated with guides RQ 2: how guides are evaluated RQ 3: evidence shared Study purpose Outcomes measured Investigatory foci Guide integration N Population Data sources Findings Bisalski et al., 2017 Present a case study of pedagogy for implementing online study materials for the ETS MFT-B self-reported test scores; students’ perceptions on effectiveness and usefulness of guide Usage; Utility; Evidence of learning Course guide 55 students enrolled in strategic management course Survey Mixed about half of students used guide; most preferred internet resources Bowen et al., 2018 Measure and compare students’ use and satisfaction of different guide navigation designs design, content, and organizational preferences Usability; Satisfaction; Utility Course guide 10 stage 1; 14 stage 2 - undergraduate students enrolled in COMM 430 class Usability testing; Standardized survey Mixed greater preference shown towards longer version of guide Bowen, 2012 Describe current approaches and assess the value of placing course- level research guides into an LMS students’ perceptions on effectiveness and usefulness of guide Usage; Satisfaction; Utility Embedded into LMS; course guide 63 undergraduates in a communications course Survey Positive most students reported that assignment guide was beneficial Bowen, 2014 Comparing students’ performance between LibGuide versus website guide knowledge-based test and affective measurement survey Usability; Usage; Satisfaction; Utility; Evidence of learning Embedded into LMS, course guide 89 undergraduate students enrolled in COMM 132 Pre/Post survey; Pre/ post-test performance Mixed students able to access materials; both sets of students were confused in answering knowledge- based questions Brewer et al., 2017 Look at how program level and the timing of the introduction of a Literature Review library guide within the program influenced online business students’ perceived value of the resource reported use and satisfaction with guides; usability and relevance of content Usage; Satisfaction Course guide 24 online undergraduate business students and online MBA students Survey Mixed students were satisfied and able to use the guide; usability could be enhanced; earlier introduction desired Carey et al., 2020 Examine students’ use, perceptions, and awareness of library guides use, perceptions, and awareness Usage; Satisfaction; Utility Course guide, Subject guide 100 undergraduate and graduate health sciences students Survey Mixed Limited general awareness, limited general use; perceived as valuable Chiware, 2015 Evaluate students’ perceptions of a guide / determine how effective guides were in supporting students use, perceptions, and awareness Usage; Satisfaction; Utility Course guide 1303 undergraduate ECON students Survey Mixed half of students used guide; most expressed appreciation for guide Effectiveness of Academic Library Research Guides 841 RQ 1: IL learning outcomes associated with guides RQ 2: how guides are evaluated RQ 3: evidence shared Study purpose Outcomes measured Investigatory foci Guide integration N Population Data sources Findings Cobus- Kuo et al., 2013 Investigate student preferences in terms of guide layout, organization, internal navigation, hierarchy, images and video, and content design, content, and organizational preferences Usability Course guide, Subject guide 20 Students in user interface design and development course Usability testing Neutral when shown guides, students expect to find library resources, databases most useful, value design consistency across guides, but held differing opinions overall. Courtois et al., 2005 Gather information on students’ satisfaction with guides single question survey was this guide helpful with 4 possible responses Utility Course guide, Subject guide 210 students Survey Mixed 40% of respondents rated a guide as Not Helpful or A Little Helpful Dalton & Pan, 2014 Outlines the overall project management process involved in implementing LibGuides at UCD Library, use, perceptions, and awareness Usage; Utility Course guide, Subject guide 58 students in the main Arts building Pre/Post survey; Pre/ Post web stats; Pre/Post interviews Mixed low guide use overall Daly, 2010 Assess the use of both automatically and manually linked Library Guides into the LMS / are guides useful to students’ research; should they be embedded? use, perceptions, and awareness Usage; Utility Embedded into LMS, course guide 106 Students who accessed the Library Guides menu item Survey Positive majority reported that course- specific guides were somewhat useful or very useful for their research and should be in LMS Dotson, 2021 Process article of how author used pandemic time to create 460 course guides for his STEM liaison areas and a look at use stats on the guides use Usage Embedded into LMS, Course guide N/A looked at use stats only Web stats Negative data shows low use overall Fagerheim et al., 2017 Student feedback on library guide design updates use; design, content, and organizational preferences Usability; Usage Subject guide 16 Undergraduate students Web stats; focus group Mixed students liked clean layout with consistent template; home tabs highest use stats 842 College & Research Libraries September 2025 RQ 1: IL learning outcomes associated with guides RQ 2: how guides are evaluated RQ 3: evidence shared Study purpose Outcomes measured Investigatory foci Guide integration N Population Data sources Findings Gardner, 1977 Encyclopedia entry describing history of pathfinder development out of Project Intrex Model Library Program, M.I.T. perceptions of usefulness Usage; Utility; Satisfaction Subject guide 71 users of MIT’s Barker Engineering Library Survey Positive 48% used pathfinders for course paper research, and all sections of the Pathfinders were used. 90 found pathfinders very helpful or fairly helpful; 10% not helpful Gerrish & Martin, 2023 Measure success of changes to remote field station library service in response to COVID-19 student willingness to use virtual library services Usage Embedded into LMS, subject guide N/A annual guide stats of undergraduate use gathered 2017–2022 Web stats; instructor interviews Positive guide visits spiked during pandemic despite fewer research assignments, fewer students, and decrease in reference questions asked Gibbons, 2003 Pilot study evaluating course guides embedded into LMS perceptions of usefulness; use Usability; Utility Embedded into LMS, course guide 53 students enrolled in 12 pilot classes Survey; web stats Positive students reported guides as highly useful to them; web stats showed repeat usage and lengthy engagement Gilman et al., 2017 Overview of faculty / librarian partnership for developing IL to support first- year agricultural science students perceptions of usefulness; use; task completion Usage; Satisfaction; Utility; Evidence of learning Embedded into LMS, Course guide N/A First-year agricultural science students in AGRI 116 Standardized survey; web stats; assignment analysis Positive students reported guides as highly useful to them though no association with assignment completion rates Greenwell, 2016 Testing an instructional design model by comparing students’ performance after using a guide designed using a systems approach with IL Standards as outcomes versus a guide designed using I-LEARN process as framework: use; information searching behaviors and pathways; source use Usage; Evidence of learning Course guide 112 first-year undergraduate students enrolled in seven sections of the same composition and communications course. Survey; IL skills test; web stats; citation analysis Positive students find online library research guides valuable for finding sources Effectiveness of Academic Library Research Guides 843 RQ 1: IL learning outcomes associated with guides RQ 2: how guides are evaluated RQ 3: evidence shared Study purpose Outcomes measured Investigatory foci Guide integration N Population Data sources Findings Griffin & Taylor, 2018 Offers a methodology for using quantitative analytics data to evaluate guide usefulness and use use Usage Course guide; subject guide N/A Primary user population undergraduate and graduate students Web stats Negative limited engagement with content overall with little use beyond home page Hansen, 2014 Examine effectiveness of ESL library guide IL skills; academic language proficiency; academic research process; perceptions of usefulness Utility; Evidence of learning Course guide; supplemental to library instruction 142 ESL undergraduates enrolled in two sections of ESL class Survey; Pre/ post test performance; focus group; pre/post assignment analysis Mixed increased awareness of library resources and scholarly source types; no increase in students’ ability to effectively use academic research Hintz et al., 2010 Identify what students want from subject guides rating of guide comprehension, visual appearance, and content usefulness; reported intention to use a guide Satisfaction; utility Subject guide 55 students Survey Neutral students want authoritative information and think guide design matters Hsieh et al., 2014 Quasi- experimental study to assess effectiveness of four approaches to teaching IL skills, one of which required students to preview a librarian created research guide test scores and performance measures Evidence of learning Supplemental to library instruction, Subject guide 107 undergraduate students in required FYW courses Pre/Post test performance Neutral No significant gains for research guide group Lauseng et al., 2021 Measure the impact of the EBM guide on user learning experience and outcomes; and to gather evidence for staffing allocations and for conversion to an OER. use; knowledge; confidence; perceptions, satisfaction level, recommendations, and future intention of referral Usage; Satisfaction; Utility; Evidence of learning Subject guide 119 students 64% and practicing health professionals 23% Survey; web stats Positive Participants reported finding what they needed and high satisfaction with guide content 844 College & Research Libraries September 2025 RQ 1: IL learning outcomes associated with guides RQ 2: how guides are evaluated RQ 3: evidence shared Study purpose Outcomes measured Investigatory foci Guide integration N Population Data sources Findings Lee & Lowe, 2018 Observe students’ unmediated and outside of class interactions and learning with either pedagogical or pathfinder style library guides during simulated research assignment assignment performance; perceived- learning experience; guide interaction and use; IL skills based on Framework Usability; Evidence of learning Course guide 22 students from first year to graduate in various majors Survey; test performance; assignment analysis; usability testing Mixed no difference on IL skills test; pedagogical guide preferred over pathfinder design Lee et al., 2003 Evaluate course guides effectiveness for students’ immediate information needs knowledge of library resources Satisfaction; Evidence of learning Supplemental to library instruction, Course guide 89 students enrolled in three basic courses Pre/Post test performance Positive experimental group performed higher than control group on all questions Leighton & May, 2013 Describe effectiveness of library instruction and course guide for preparing students for mock appellate exercise use; perceptions of usefulness Usage; Utility Supplemental to library instruction, Course guide 24 undergraduate international business students Survey; web stats Mixed Few students used guide resources; most would recommend to a friend Li, 2016 Evaluate how students use the library resources and services for completing their projects use of library resources and services for completing projects Usage; Utility Course guide, subject guide N/A undergraduate business students Survey Positive Majority of students used library resources to complete their projects, incl. databases 80%, course guides 63.3%, articles 33.3%, subject guides 23.3%, archives 16.7% and books 10% Lierman et al., 2019 Describes multi- stage usability testing process used during and after migration to LibGuides v2. design, content, and organizational preferences Usability Course guide, Subject guide 6 mix of students Usability testing; survey Neutral students grouped content according to type of task e.g. citing sources instead of users e.g. undergrads, athletes Effectiveness of Academic Library Research Guides 845 RQ 1: IL learning outcomes associated with guides RQ 2: how guides are evaluated RQ 3: evidence shared Study purpose Outcomes measured Investigatory foci Guide integration N Population Data sources Findings Little et al., 2010 Share information related to a faculty learning community and their instructional methods for teaching research skills self-perceptions: ease of navigation; usefulness of info and resources Usability; Satisfaction; Utility Course guide 18 graduate students Survey Positive Authors conclude survey findings reveal “overwhelming success” of library guide as a tool to support student research Magi, 2003 Quasi- experimental study comparing students’ use of print pathfinder versus web-based research guide in library instruction self-perceptions of guide usefulness; feelings, opinions, and attitudes; source use Usability; Satisfaction; Utility; Evidence of learning Supplemental to library instruction, Print-based, Course guide, Subject guide 84 Undergraduate students enrolled in two sections of first- year business course Pre/Post survey; citation evaluation Mixed high satisfaction; low use; no difference in resources used Mahaffy, 2013 Explores students’ independent interactions with research guides use; design, content, and organizational preferences Usage; Satisfaction; Utility Print-based, Course guide 10 undergraduates in ART 101 course focus groups; web stats Mixed limited use reported; little familiarity with content Metter & Willis, 1993 Overview of library handbook project to replace library instruction Student perceived usability, utility, and satisfaction Usability; Satisfaction; Utility Print-based 85 students Survey Positive Most students reported greater comfort in using library and would recommend it to a friend Miles & Bergstrom, 2009 Usability study on effect of the number of subject labels listed on research question response times Response time to research questions and total number of subject headings Usability Other: Participants selected subject label in response to research questions 120 students and staff Usability testing Neutral No association between response time and number of subject categories Miller, 2014 Examines custom library guide creation and use of library resources course guide resource use and assignment performance Usage Supplemental to library instruction, course guide 318 technical college students in English and psychology classes Web stats Positive Relationship found between course guide creation and use stats 846 College & Research Libraries September 2025 RQ 1: IL learning outcomes associated with guides RQ 2: how guides are evaluated RQ 3: evidence shared Study purpose Outcomes measured Investigatory foci Guide integration N Population Data sources Findings Miner & Alexander, 2010 Investigates use of library guides for broad and narrow topics in lower- and upper- division POLI classes Students’ performance on theory papers and current events assignments; guide use Usage; Evidence of learning Course guide 75 students in an international affairs and political science course Web stats; Assignment analysis Positive Relationship between overall guide use and assignment performance Mubofu & Malekani, 2021 Explore accessibility of library resources and services to distance learners satisfaction, use, and access challenges re. library resources Usage; Satisfaction Course guide, subject guide 33 distance students Survey Mixed Most students reported using the guides but were neutral re. satisfaction with library research guides Murphy & Black, 2013 Examined use and design characteristics of library guides embedded in LMS Consideration of promotion, design characteristics, and student preferences for library guides Usage; Utility Embedded into LMS, Course guide, Subject guide 100 students Standardized survey; web stats; content analysis Mixed more students aware of guides than used them; most students described guides as helpful Mussell & Croft, 2013 Evaluation of library resource use to aid resource allocation Use, perceptions, and awareness Satisfaction; Utility Course guide, Subject guide 1,038 mix of undergraduate and graduate students Survey; web stats Mixed limited use of guides; clear preference for Google; less than half who had used guides found them helpful to essential Olshausen, 2018 Examine use of course guides outside of classroom Use, perceptions, and awareness Usage; Satisfaction; Utility Supplemental to library instruction, Course guide, Subject guide 5 students Web stats; interviews Mixed Little consistency in responses but most said guides seemed valuable Ouellette, 2011 Qualitative project investigating students’ use of and satisfaction with subject guides Use, perceptions, and awareness Usage; Satisfaction Subject guide 11; mix of students from different class levels and disciplines Interviews Negative Students don’t use guides as unaware, prefer Google, or have info strategies in place Paul et al., 2020 Case studying examining whether online library guides helped prepare students to meet with reference librarian student survey on guide usefulness, quiz and discussion post about guide content Satisfaction; Utility; Evidence of learning Course guide 30 online graduate students in education doctoral program Survey; test; assignment analysis Positive positive responses to design and content; content viewed as valuable Effectiveness of Academic Library Research Guides 847 RQ 1: IL learning outcomes associated with guides RQ 2: how guides are evaluated RQ 3: evidence shared Study purpose Outcomes measured Investigatory foci Guide integration N Population Data sources Findings Pickens- French & McDonald, 2012 Study effectiveness of library guides embedded into CMS Surveyed students on guide usability and overall satisfaction Usability; Satisfaction Embedded into LMS, Course guide 34 undergraduate students in English class Survey; web stats Neutral low interest in instructional content; preference for fewer resources listed Rafferty, 2013 To evaluate whether students used resources recommended in library instruction Sources cited in students’ research assignments Usage Supplemental to library instruction, Course guide 118; three years of first- year medical students enrolled in course Citation analysis Positive Students heavily cited library resources with 22% citing sources shared on course guide Rothstein, 1989 Reflection on effectiveness of library school project having students create customized research guides for undergraduates Questionnaire given to student recipients of custom research guides Usage; Satisfaction; Utility; Evidence of learning Subject guide 77 questionnaires given to all 260 undergraduate student recipients of custom research guides Survey Positive 90% of users reported being satisfied with custom research guides Scoulas, 2021 Examine relationship between STEM and non-STEM students’ library use, perceptions, and GPA Students’ overall experience with library use; frequency of visits and resource use; perceptions of resources; satisfaction with physical spaces Usage; Satisfaction Course guide, Subject guide 1,265 undergraduate students responding to library use survey Survey Mixed STEM students valued course/ subject guides less than non- STEM, though small effect size Sharrar, 2017 Understand how student perceptions of library course guides effect their intent to use them Students’ stated intentions to use a guide Usage; Utility Course guide 47 undergraduate students who use course pages Standardized survey Positive most found guides useful and relevant to their needs Sinkinson et al., 2012 Open card sort study comparing undergraduate, graduate, and librarian perceptions and expectations of library guide content User content expectations Usability; Utility Subject guide 30 included three groups: undergraduate, graduate, and librarians Pre/Post survey; usability testing Mixed differences detected between undergrad and grad student users Slemons, 2013 Use of guides regressed against design and usability standards to understand relationship Average guide page hits per month / per page Usage Course guide, Subject guide N/A usage stats for 2 years Web stats Mixed more content = less use; use of design standards associated with use 848 College & Research Libraries September 2025 RQ 1: IL learning outcomes associated with guides RQ 2: how guides are evaluated RQ 3: evidence shared Study purpose Outcomes measured Investigatory foci Guide integration N Population Data sources Findings Smith, 2007 Overview of using meta-assessment to evaluate LibGuide annual use Results from multiple regression analysis of guide use stats Usage; Utility Course guide, Subject guide N/A examined annual use stats of guides per month Web stats Mixed Identified significant differences in use for some subject areas over others Soskin & Eldblom, 1984 Problems and potential benefits of a term paper for an upper-division economics course are examined using 3 years of data Informal assessment of effectiveness of library instruction and guide Usage Supplemental to library instruction, Course guide, print-based N/A students enrolled in economics class Citation analysis; Assignment analysis Neutral Small relationship between number of sources cited and grade; No relationship between number of source types and grade on assignment Stone et al., 2018 Comparative investigation between pedagogical and pathfinder guide designs and impact on student learning Retention of learning; student perceptions of guide effectiveness; Satisfaction; Utility; Evidence of learning Supplemental to library instruction, Course guide, Subject guide 43 dental hygiene students Survey; pre/ post test performance; web stats; assignment analysis Positive students using pedagogical guide showed increase in perceptions, use, and grade performance over pathfinder Tang & Tseng, 2014 Examine distance students attitudes towards library help services Preferences and attitudes for receiving help; self-efficacy for online learning Usage; Satisfaction; Utility Subject guide, Course guide 220 distance students Standardized survey Mixed Library guides most common library assistance tool used but low use overall Thorngate & Hoden, 2016 Compared students’ use of three different guides to understand how guide layout and spatial distribution components affect interaction student understanding of purpose of guide; task completion; satisfaction and preferences of content and layout Usability Subject guide 30 students representing wide range of demographic characteristics test performance; usability testing Mixed students had design and layout preferences Tomlin et al., 2017 Understand students’ use of library resources students’ use and perceived usefulness of library guides Usage; Satisfaction; Utility Course guide, Subject guide 182 survey; 30 interviews graduate and undergraduate students at two campuses Survey; interviews Mixed most students did not use library guides, but those who did reported strong satisfaction with them Effectiveness of Academic Library Research Guides 849 RQ 1: IL learning outcomes associated with guides RQ 2: how guides are evaluated RQ 3: evidence shared Study purpose Outcomes measured Investigatory foci Guide integration N Population Data sources Findings Wharton & Pritchard, 2020 Assessment of LTI integration after three years of Canvas course integration perceived usefulness, satisfaction with, and use of library guides integrated in the LMS Usage; Satisfaction; Utility Embedded into LMS, Supplemental to library instruction, Course guide, Subject guide >500 survey of fully online students Survey; web stats Positive nearly half of students surveyed reported using guides; most found them helpful