Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship

v.7 no.3 (Winter 2006)

Back to Contents

Assessing Library Collections using Brief Test Methodology

Jennifer Benedetto Beals
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA


The brief test methodology was developed by Howard White as an assessment tool to determine or verify the existing strength of a library collection.  The relatively quick and inexpensive procedure utilizes the Research Libraries Group’s Conspectus levels, subject expertise, and cataloging records in WorldCat.  In support of the University of Tennessee Libraries’ continuing efforts to encourage resource sharing with Information Alliance partners, I developed a project with art counterparts at the University of Kentucky and Vanderbilt University.  Using brief tests, I completed an assessment of each institution’s collection in the subject area of African art.  The results enabled us to determine existing collection strengths and designate each institution as the resource library for a specific subject area. This article provides an overview of the methodology, difficulties encountered, brief test results and applications of the assessment.

Project Background

The University of Tennessee at Knoxville engages in collaborative collection development with Vanderbilt University and the University of Kentucky.  The Information Alliance Libraries meet regularly to discuss strategies for resource sharing.  Each library participates in Kudzu, a system of linked online catalogs of research libraries in the Southeast created by the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries.  The participating libraries agree to provide expedited delivery of interlibrary loan materials to other member libraries.  This agreement ensures reliable and prompt access to research materials for faculty and students of the Information Alliance Libraries. 

My art counterparts at Kentucky and Vanderbilt and I were charged with identifying a subject area for which each institution could serve as the resource library for the Information Alliance.  Each library would then reduce expenditures in areas of non-specialization and increase expenditures in its area of specialization.  The resulting collections would yield less duplication but better access to a broad range of specialized resources.  I chose the brief test methodology as a tool to assess the University of Tennessee’s collection and introduced the technique to my counterparts. 

Brief Test Methodology as an Alternative to the Conspectus

Howard White of Drexel University developed the brief test methodology as an objective tool to measure the current strength of a library collection.  He based the process on the collection levels established by the Research Libraries Group Conspectus, a system introduced in the early 1980s in an attempt to create an inventory of existing collections.  Providing convenient access to detailed information about the strengths of a wide range of research collections could pave the way towards better coordination of acquisitions and sharing of resources.  The Conspectus was incorporated into written collection development policy statements for consortial agreements and widely accepted in the national and international library communities.  The Association of Research Libraries adopted the Conspectus to use in the North American Collections Inventory Project. 

Data for the Conspectus was gathered through a survey with worksheets, depending on an accurate self-assessment.  A number of factors could contribute to less-than-accurate reporting, including lack of subject knowledge or expertise on the part of the librarian.  Institutions might be tempted to inflate collection levels to gain prestige or deflate levels to seek additional funding or deter interlibrary loan and reference requests.  Rankings could ultimately affect budget, collections, and staffing issues.  “Thus, the numbers may say more about librarians’ political intentions than they do about their holdings.”  (White 15)  Finally, the results were deemed too subjective and untimely and by 1998, the Conspectus was no longer used as a collection assessment tool.  White’s brief test methodology was an attempt to provide an objective collection assessment tool utilizing the basic structure of the RLG Conspectus.  White developed a process that could be used to establish or verify the level of a collection using professional judgment but supported by reliable holdings data. 

The Brief Test Methodology Process

According to White’s process, a title list is compiled by a subject specialist and then ranked according to the number of holdings as verified in WorldCat.  This list can be used to measure and evaluate the collection of any institution, regardless of type or size.  Forty titles are selected for the given subject area, ten titles for each of the four conspectus levels.  Level 0 (Out of scope) and Level 5 (Comprehensive) are not used in the assessment.  Level 1 and 2 collections meet basic information needs; a Level 3 collection provides strong local support, while a Level 4 collection acquires a regional or national significance.

Table 1. RLG Conspectus Levels
Level 1. Minimum: Basic materials
Level 2. Basic Information: General materials that define and introduce a subject
Level 3. Instructional Support: Collection that supports undergraduate and most graduate study
Level 4. Research: Collection which supports doctoral and post-graduate research.  Contains major reference works and solid selection of specialized sources including foreign language publications.

Ideally, a subject bibliographer would compile the list of titles but alternatively, someone with good subject knowledge can select the titles from authoritative bibliographies.  It is important to maintain objectivity when making selections and not inadvertently select your own institution’s holdings due to familiarity.  It is also imperative to provide a thorough representation of all areas within each subject area. 

Initially the titles are selected and assigned to a level based on the subject bibliographer’s knowledge and best estimate.  After the list is compiled, the holdings and Library of Congress classification are verified using WorldCat.  Titles which do not conform to the appropriate LC classification are discarded.  Titles within the appropriate range are then permanently assigned to the correct level according to the institutional holdings.  White defined the appropriate number of holdings for each Level as follows: Level 1 (over 750), Level 2 (401-750), Level 3 (151-400) and Level 4 (150 or less).  The numbers are based on the premise that basic materials will be widely acquired, while specialized materials will be narrowly acquired.  The test is not meant to measure recent materials since not enough libraries will have had sufficient time to purchase the titles and the holdings will not accurately reflect significance.

The final list of titles is compared to the holdings for the institution being evaluated through WorldCat or a local catalog.  The library collection is then ranked according to the results.  In order to pass a level, the library must own 50% or five of the titles listed in that level.  The highest level passed is the level for that library.  The levels are cumulative in nature so that if a collection contains at least 50% of the titles at one level, it will also include at least 50% of the titles in all lower levels. 

Evaluation of the Brief Test Methodology

Although White worked with the brief test methodology from the late 1980s through the mid-1990s, little literature appears on the topic.  Several reviewers addressed White’s Brief Tests of Collection Strength: a Methodology for All Types of Libraries (1995).  Hazen, in particular, pointed out a number of caveats to the methodology.  Hazen argued that a collection assessment tool might be increasingly irrelevant when researchers rely more on remote access to resources and less on local collections.  Hazen also remained doubtful that all scholarship in all research areas could be reliably represented through WorldCat alone.  Both Holly and Hazen felt additional justification was warranted for White’s choice of only forty titles for a brief test, when more titles might bring greater accuracy to the assessment.

Twiss tested White’s methodology as outlined in “A Validation of Brief Tests of Collection Strength,” Collection Management, 2001.  Twiss prepared two brief tests in Soviet history, which were then applied to five different libraries.  In assessing White’s methodology, Twiss relied on four sets of criteria applied to the test results.  Are the results intelligible, or do the test scores show a cumulative pattern?  If a collection passes Level 3, it should also pass Levels 1 and 2.  Are the test scores sensible or do the results correspond to expectations?  Generally, a large academic library would be expected to rank higher than a community college.  Are the results convergent?  Similar tests should yield similar results.  Are the tests in agreement with the self-rating?  The ranking established through application of brief tests should correspond with a professional estimate (Twiss 24).  The conclusions Twiss reached strongly supported the validity of the brief test methodology.  Lesniaski also worked with the brief test method demonstrating how it could be applied to smaller libraries.

University of Tennessee Project: African Art Assessment

University of Tennessee Libraries was already interested in developing a library collection with an emphasis in the art of Africa and Oceania in order to support growing interest in the curriculum and expanded course offerings.  This area was chosen for the brief test methodology.  The first step was to evaluate the current collection by applying White’s procedure.  The assessment was conducted to set the level of the collection rather than to verify it.  I assumed the collection was a Level 2 at most, because there had been few course offerings or faculty interest in the subject area prior to my arrival a few years earlier; but I had little real knowledge of the collection itself.  Although my background is in art history, I have not studied African art extensively, which permitted me to retain a necessary degree of objectivity in compiling the title list. 

Following White’s process, I first identified authoritative bibliographies in the selected subject area.  I selected four sources that provided a thorough and representative list of titles in the area of African Art.

Table 2.  Selected Bibliography
Stanley, Janet L.  African Art: a bibliographic guide.  New York: African Pub. Co., 1985

Stanley, Janet L.  Modern African Art: A Basic Reading List.  A Work in Progress.  (National Museum of African Art Library.  Smithsonian Institution Libraries)

Gaskin, L.J. P.  A Bibliography of African Art; compiled at the International African Institute.  London: International African Institute, 1965

The Grove Dictionary of Art Online, (Oxford University Press)

From a preliminary list of titles, I attempted to assign 10 titles for Levels 1-4 for each LC classification in the Ns assigned to African art.  The classifications included N Visual Arts, NA Architecture, NB Sculpture, NC Drawing, Design and Illustration, ND Painting, NE Print Media, NK Decorative Arts, NX Arts in General. 

I also attempted to balance the list to represent different areas including time periods, ranging from prehistoric to contemporary, and all geographic regions of Africa.  Only materials published before 2004 were included in the assessment.  Rare or special collections materials were not included. No periodicals, microfilm, electronic or multimedia materials were used in the assessment.  There were no specifications regarding language of publication and although the majority of titles were in English, 10% were published in French or German.

With the preliminary list of titles compiled, I verified Library of Congress classification using WorldCat.  A majority of materials published in the area of African art are placed in the general N range, lending this classification to a more thorough assessment than others but leaving other areas with large gaps.  Other publications were cataloged in the related areas of African history, archaeology, or anthropology, rendering them ineligible for this study. 

The next step was to verify the preliminary level assignment of each title by checking holdings in WorldCat using White’s formula: Level 1 (over 750), Level 2 (401-750), Level 3 (151-400), and Level 4 (150 or less).  Multiple records including translations for the same title were treated as one title, with the sum of the holdings counted.  Editions with minor revisions were also treated as one title.  Substantially revised editions of a title were treated as separate records with separate holdings.  I tried to avoid highly specialized titles with fewer than five holdings.

The titles in the bibliographies did not yield sufficient titles for all of the needed LC ranges.  The Stanley and Gaskin bibliographies were most helpful in locating titles for Levels 3 and 4 while Grove Dictionary of Art was helpful for some Level 1 titles.

Locating ten titles with more than 750 owning libraries was enormously difficult for most areas.  After exhausting the bibliographic sources, I turned to searching for materials in WorldCat through general subject searches, vendor catalogs, and even Amazon but was unable to find sufficient titles to complete each range.  I also expanded the initial call number ranges I had assigned.  For example, I initially selected only titles in N7380-7399, but expanded the list to include N5310 in order to meet the required number of titles.  After repeated searching, I was still unable to find sufficient titles for certain LC ranges.  Modified assessments were conducted for these areas.  The modified assessment consisted of selecting 40 titles for the selected LC range, ranking the titles by number of holdings and then dividing them in four equal levels.

Brief Test Results

In the end, thorough assessments were completed for N Visual Arts and NB Sculpture using the brief test methodology.  Modified assessments were completed for NA Architecture, ND Painting, NK Decorative Arts and Design, and NX Arts in General.  The areas of NC Drawing, Design and Illustration and NE Print Media did not yield even 40 titles so no assessment could be conducted.  See Appendices I and II for brief tests used for N and NB.

After checking the title lists against our catalog, I could set a level for each area.

Table 3.  Brief Test Results for University of Tennessee
N Visual Arts of Africa: Level 3, passing score of 70%
NB African Sculpture: Level 3, passing score of 60%

Table 4. Modified Brief Test Results for University of Tennessee
NA African Architecture: Level 3, passing score of 70%
ND African Painting: Level 1, passing score of 60%
NK Decorative Arts of Africa: Level 4, passing score of 50%
NX African Arts in General: Level 1, passing score of 70%

The use of White’s brief test methodology to assess the African art collection proved that our collection was strong but could be improved.  The collection ranked Level 3 or higher in the areas of African visual arts, sculpture, architecture and decorative arts.  The lower rankings in painting and general arts could be due to the fact that few materials are published and cataloged specifically in these areas.

In the process of implementing the assessment, I also hoped to locate titles which could then be acquired.  I thought the titles lists could actually be used as a collection tool.  This, hope however, proved impractical because many of the titles in the list were out of print or elusive at best.  The title lists compiled for my assessment could, however, be used to assess any other institution’s holdings in the area of African Art. 

Application to Collaborative Collection Development

The methodology can also be used to rank a consortial collection.  I used the title lists to evaluate the combined collections of The Information Alliance: University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Kentucky.  In two instances, NA and NX, the consortial ranking was one level higher than the individual ranking for The University of Tennessee.  In each level, the passing score was higher, although the level established remained the same.

Table 5.  Brief Test Results for Information Alliance
N Visual Arts of Africa: Level 3, passing score of 100%
NB African Sculpture: Level 3, passing score of 80%

Table 6. Modified Brief Test Results for Information Alliance
NA African Architecture: Level 4, passing score of 50%
ND African Painting: Level 1, passing score of 90%
NK Decorative Arts of Africa: Level 4, passing score of 60%
NX African Arts in General: Level 2, passing score of 80%

During the time I implemented the assessment of African Art materials, my counterparts implemented assessments in other collection areas.  As a result of the evaluations, each institution has been designated the resource library for a particular collecting area.  The University of Tennessee will emphasize collecting in the area of African art and the University of Kentucky will develop collections in the area of northern European Renaissance art.  Vanderbilt University verified the strength of its Latin American Art collection through the brief test methodology and will continue to develop this regional resource.  Vanderbilt will also emphasize purchases in the area of French and English art, 18-20th centuries.  Each library will reduce expenditures in the subject areas emphasized by the other participating institutions. 


White’s brief test methodology provided an inexpensive, consistent, and quick method to assess collections.  The most time-consuming portion of the assessment was compilation of the title lists.  However, with a wider range of literature available in the appropriate classification, the list would be less difficult to assemble.  With assistance from a staff member to verify holdings in WorldCat, the process could easily be completed in a timely manner.

A completed assessment can determine or verify the existing strength of the collection.  Vanderbilt University was able to verify its Level 4 collection in the area of Latin American art using brief test methodology, while I was able to establish a Level 3 for the University of Tennessee’s African art collection.  The assessment tool can also be used to identify gaps that need to be addressed.  Academic collections can be strongly demand-driven through faculty requests, creating areas of enormous disparity. 

The methodology can be used to assess any size or type of collection and applied to both broad and narrow subject areas.  Brief tests are better suited to subject areas that have a well-defined Library of Congress classification.  Interdisciplinary topics without a fixed classification are more difficult to assess.  In addition, a well-established area of research will obviously yield more titles for the master lists than a newly discovered area of interest.  My colleague at the University of Kentucky discovered that the area of Media Arts was both too new and irregularly cataloged to lend itself to an accurate assessment using White’s process.

Although I restricted the assessment to monographs, it could certainly be applied to other formats.  Electronic texts could be incorporated into the title lists in addition to other formats.  The basic methodology can be adapted to suit individual needs, as long as consistency is maintained. 

Although the brief test methodology can provide a good analysis of existing collections, it does not provide an accurate assessment of recent acquisitions.  In order for the test to be accurate, the title must have been available long enough for institutions to have adequate time to add it to their holdings.  Limited publication runs can also negatively affect the number of owning institutions.  Cost can pose an additional factor in the acquisition of titles.  Collections could be strong otherwise and lack a certain title because of prohibitive cost.  The brief test process does not measure previous collection strength.  Materials can be lost, damaged, or de-selected.  The methodology is perhaps most applicable in the humanities and social sciences, where historical materials rarely lose their significance. In the sciences particularly, where the emphasis is current research, older materials are more likely to be withdrawn from the collection.

White’s methodology is a collection centered, not client centered means of evaluation.  Brief tests measure only the existing level of a particular collection.  “That is, they crudely indicate a collection’s strength or depth rather than its serviceability” (White 7).  It does not measure client use or satisfaction; nor does it determine if the collection is appropriate for a particular institution.  Patrons of the community college library often will have different needs than those of the academic research library.  As Lesniaski points out, the best collection is the one that meets its clients' needs, which will vary widely.  “What would a good collection be for your library at your college?”  (Lesniaski 12)  Although White’s assessment tool does not directly address coverage, the objective ranking of the strength of the collection is the first step in improving coverage if necessary.

With the increasing reliance on electronic resources, some might question the need for an assessment tool that measures physical collections.  Scholars are increasingly less interested in who owns a particular item and more concerned with how quickly and easily they can access it.  Is the local collection still relevant?  I would argue that in the humanities disciplines, print materials are still in demand.  Evaluation of an existing collection provides direction for future development and budget expenditures.  With rising print costs, it may become even more necessary to emphasize resource sharing.  Reliable and convenient access to the combined resources of the Information Alliance assists in reducing duplication of specialized materials while increasing access to a wider range of materials for researchers. 


Hardesty, Larry L. Rev. of Brief Tests of Collection Strength, by Howard D. White.  Collection Management 20.3-4 (1996): 219-20.

Hazen, Dan.  Rev. of Brief Tests of Collection Strength, by Howard D. White.  College and Research Libraries 57 (May 1996): 305-7.

Holley, Robert P.  Rev. of Brief Tests of Collection Strength, by Howard D. White.  Journal of Documentation 53 (December 1998): 549-52.

Intner, Sheila A.  Rev. of Brief Tests of Collection Strength, by Howard D. White.  Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 20 (Winter 1996): 484-6.

Lesniaski, David.  “Evaluating Collections: A Discussion and Extension of Brief Tests of Collection Strength.”  College and Undergraduate Libraries 11.1 (2004): 11-24.

Schwartz, Charles A.  Rev. of Brief Tests of Collection Strength, by Howard D. White.  Journal of Academic Librarianship 22 (November 1996): 469.

Twiss, Thomas M.  “A Validation of Brief Tests of Collection Strength.”  Collection Management 25.3 (2001): 23-7.

White, Howard D. Brief Tests of Collection Strength: A Methodology for all Types of Libraries.  Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1995.

Wood, Richard J. “The Conspectus: A Collection Analysis and Development Success.”  Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 20 (1996): 429-53.

Appendix I: Title Lists for LC Classification N Visual Arts of Africa

Level 1:  Minimal.  (over 750 owning libraries) LC Class UTK
Ben-Amos, Paula.  The Art of Benin.  New York: Thames & Hudson, 1995 N7399  
Drewal, Henry John.  Yoruba: Nine Centuries of African Art and Thought.  New York: Center for African Art, 1989 N7399 X
Eyo, Ekpo and Frank Willett.  Treasures of Ancient Nigeria.  New York: Knopf, 1980 N7399 X
Fall, N'Gone.  An Anthology of African Art: the twentieth century.  New York: D.A.P., 2002 N7391.65 X
Gillon, Werner.  A Short History of African Art.  Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1991 N7380 X
Kasfir, Sidney Littlefield.  Contemporary African Art.  New York: Thames & Hudson, 2000 N7380 X
Laude, Jean.  The Arts of Black Africa.  Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971 N7398 X
Mount, Marshall W.  African Art: the years since 1920.  Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973 N7391.65 X
Vogel, Susan Mullin.  Africa Explores: 20th century african art.  New York: Center for African Art, 1991 N7391.65  
Willett, Frank.  African Art: an introduction.  New York: Praeger, 1971 N7380 X
Passing Score for each Level is 50% or higher   80%

Level 2:  Basic Information.  (401-750 owning libraries) LC Class UTK
Beier, Ulli.  Art in Nigeria.  Cambridge: University Press, 1960 N7397 X
Africa's Contemporary Art and Artists.  New York: Harmon Foundation, 1966 N7397 X
Cornet, Joseph.  Art of Africa: treasures from the Congo.  New York: Praeger, 1971 N7399 X
Dark, Philip John Crosskey.  An Introduction to Benin Art and Technology.  Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973 N7399 X
LaDuke, Betty.  Africa Through the Eyes of Women Artists.  Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, 1991 N7380  
Laude, Jean.  African Art of the Dogon: the myths of the cliff dwellers.  New York: Brooklyn Museum, 1973 N7399 X
Leiris, Michel and Jacqueline Fry.  African Art.  London: Thames & Hudson, 1968 N7380  
Magnin, Andre and Jacques Soulillou.  Contemporary Art of Africa.  New York: H.N. Abrams, 1996 N7391 X
McCall, Daniel F. African Images: essays in African iconology.  New York: African Studies Center, 1975 N7398  
Willcox, A.R.  The Rock Art of South Africa. Johannesburg: Nelson, 1963 N5310  
Passing Score for each Level is 50% or higher   60%

Level 3: Instructional Support.  (151-400 owning libraries) LC Class UTK
Camden Arts Centre.  Contemporary African Art.  London: Studio International, 1969 N7380  
DeJager, E.J.  Contemporary African Art in South Africa.  Cape Town: C. Struik, 1973 N7392 X
Fraser, Douglas.  African Art as Philosophy.  New York: Interbook, 1974 N7398  
Freyer, Bryna.  Royal Benin Art in the Collection of the National Museum of African Art.  Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1987 N7399 X
Gebauer, Paul.  Art of Cameroon.  New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1979 N7399 X
Jones, G.I.  The Art of Eastern Nigeria.  Cambridge: University Press, 1984 N7399 X
LaDuke, Betty.  Africa: women's art, women's lives.  Trenton: NJ: Africa World Press, 1997 N7391.65  
Miller, Judith von D.  Art in East Africa: a guide to contemporary art.  London: F. Muller, 1975 N7397 X
Northern, Tamara.  The Art of Cameroon.  Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1984 N7399 X
Ottenberg, Simon.  The Nsukka Artists and Nigerian Contemporary Art.  Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2002 N7399 X
Passing Score for each Level is 50% or higher   70%

Level 4:  Research.  (less than 150 owning libraries) LC Class UTK
Contemporary African Artists.  New York: Studio Museum in Harlem, 1990 N7380 X
Cornet, Joseph.  Art Royal Kuba.  Milano: Edizioni Sipiel, 1982 N7399  
Deepwell, Katy.  Art Criticism and Africa.  London: Saffron Books, 1998 N7485  
Fischer, Eberhard and Hans Himmelheber.  The Arts of the Dan in West Africa.  Zurich: Museum Rietbert, 1984 N7399  
Fosu, Kojo.  20th Century Art of Africa.  Zaria, Nigeria: Gaskiya, 1986 N7391.65  
Seck, Assane.  Contemporary Art of Senegal.  Senegal: Garamond/Pridemark Press, 1980 N7399  
Sinclair, Peter.  Art from the Frontline: contemporary art from Southern Africa.  London: Karia Press, 1990 N7391.7 X
Tessema, Mammo.  Religious Art of Ethiopia.  Stuttgard: Institut fur Auslandsbeziehungen, 1973 N7988.7  
Wolfe, Ernie.  An Introduction to the Arts of Kenya.  Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1979 N7397.6  
Woodhouse, HC.  The Bushman Art of Southern Africa.  Cape Town: Purnell, 1979 N5310.5  
Passing Score for each Level is 50% or higher   20%

Appendix II: Title Lists for LC Classification NB African Sculpture

Level 1:  Minimal.  (over 750 owning libraries) LC Class UTK
Allison, Philip.  African Stone Sculpture.  New York: Praeger, 1968

NB1097 x
Bascom, William Russell.  African Art in Cultural Perspective.  New York:  Norton, 1973 NB1080 x
Elisofon, Eliot.  The Sculpture of Africa; 405 photographs.  New York:  Praeger, 1958 NB1080 x
Fagg, William Buller.  Tribes and Forms in African Art.  New York:  Tudor, 1965 NB1080 x
Meauze, Pierre.  African Art:  sculpture.  Cleveland: World Publishing Co., 1968 NB1097 x
Segy, Legislas.  African Sculpture.  New York: Dover, 1958 NB1080 x
Sieber, Roy & Roslyn A. Walker.  African Art in the Cycle of Life.  Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Press, 1987 NB1091.65 x
Trowell, Margaret.  Classical African Sculpture.  New York: Praeger, 1970 NB1098 x
Wassing, Rene S. African Art; its background and traditions.  New York:  H.N. Abrams, 1968 NB1091.65 x
Willett, Frank.  Ife in the History of Western African Sculpture.  New York:  McGraw-Hill, 1967 NB1097 x
Passing Score for each Level is 50% or higher   100%

Level 2:  Basic Information.  (401-750 owning libraries) LC Class UTK
Baldwin, James & Michael Weber.  Perspectives: angles on African art.  New York: Center for African Art, 1987 NB1091.65 x
Carroll, Kevin.  Yoruba Religious Carving: pagan & Christian sculpture in Nigeria & Dahomey.  New York: Praeger, 1967 NB1097 x
Fagg, William Buller.  African Sculpture: an anthology.  London: Studio Vista, 1964 NB1080 x
Fagg, William Buller.  Yoruba, Sculpture of West Africa.  New York: Knopf, 1982 NB1099  
Goldwater, Robert John.  Senufo Sculpture from West Africa.  Greenwich, CT:  New York Graphic Society, 1964 NB1097  
Holy, Ladislov.  Masks and Figures from Eastern and Southern Africa.  London: Hamlyn, 1967 NB1097 x
Kerchache, Jacques, et al.  Art of Africa.  New York: H.N.  Abrams, 1993 NB1098  
Segy, Ladislas.  African Sculpture Speaks.  New York: DaCapo Press, 1975 4th edition NB1098 x
Vogel, Susan.  African Masterpieces from the Musee del'homme.  New York: Center for African Art, 1985 NB1091.65 x
Vogel, Susan.  For Spirits & Kings: African art from the Tishman Collection.  New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1981 NB1098.65 x
Passing Score for each Level is 50% or higher   70%

Level 3: Instructional Support.  (151-400 owning libraries) LC Class UTK
Bravmann, Rene A.  West African Sculpture.  Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1970 NB1097 x
Fagg, William Buller.  The Art of Western Africa; tribal masks and sculptures.  London:  Collins, 1967 NB1097  
Goldwater, Robert John.  Bambara Sculpture from the Western Sudan.  New York: University Publishers, 1960 NB1097  
Guillaume, Paul & Thomas Munro.  Primitive Negro Sculpture.  New York: Hacker Art Books, 1968, c1954 NB1080 x
Korn, Jorn and Jesper Kirknaes.  Modern Makonde Art.  London: Hamlyn, 1974 NB1255 x
LaGamma, Alisa.  Genesis: ideas of origin in African sculpture.  New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2002 NB1080.5 x
Serageldin, Ismail, et al.  Home and the World: architectural sculpture by two contemporary African Artists.  New York: Museum for African Art, 1993 NB1080.5 x
Sweeney, James Johnson.  African Sculpture.  Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 1970, c1964 NB1098  
Thompson, Jerry, et al.  Closeup: lessons in the art of seeing African sculpture from an American collection and the Horstmann Collection.  New York:  Center for African Art, 1990 NB1080 x
Vogel, Susan.  African Aesthetics: Carlo Monzino collection.  New York: Center for African Art, 1986 NB1091  
Passing Score for each Level is 50% or higher   60%

Level 4:  Research.  (less than 150 owning libraries) LC Class UTK
Arnold, Marion.  Zimbabwean Stone Sculpture.  Bulawayo: L. Bolze, 1986, c1981 NB1209  
Contemporary Stone Carving from Zimbabwe. Wakefield, West Yorkshire: Sculpture Park, 1990 NB1209  
Fagg, William Buller, et al.  Yoruba: sculpture of West Africa.  London: Collins, 1982 NB1099  
Hocchegger, Hermann.  Sculptures nouvelles de Bandundu, Rep. Du Zaire.  Bandundu:  CEEBA, 1980 NB1099  
Kuhn, Joy.  Myth and Magic: the art of the Shona of Zimbabwe.  Cape Town: D. Nelson, 1978 NB1096.6  
Lem, F.H.  Sudanese Sculpture.  Paris: Arts et metiers graphiques, 1949 NB1097  
Makonde: wooden sculpture from East Africa.  Oxford:  Museum of Modern Art, 1989 NB62  
Rankin, Elizabeth.  Images of Wood.  Johannesburg Art Gallery, 1989 NB1255  
Stout, J. Anthony.  Modern Makonde Sculpture.  Nairobi, Kenya : Kibo Art Gallery Publications, 1966 NB1097  
Winter-Irving, Celia.  Contemporary Stone Sculpture in Zimbabwe.  Tortola, BVI: Craftsman House, 1993 NB1096.6  
Passing Score for each Level is 50% or higher   0%

Back to Contents