SQL Server 2008 R2 Partitioning – How to Interpret DMV Results

Version: SQL Server 2008 R2 Enterprise Edtn. (10.50.4000)

In attempt to evaluate our partitioning strategy, I wrote this query to get the access methods against indexes on partitions (in the broadest sense of the term, though I'm eliminating heaps). As I narrow my focus to partitioned tables, I believe I need to be looking at range_scan_count and singleton_lookup_count but am having a hard time conceptualizing.

SELECT 
    t.name AS table_name,
    i.name AS index_name,
    ios.partition_number, 
    leaf_insert_count,
    leaf_delete_count,
    leaf_update_count,
    leaf_ghost_count,
    range_scan_count,
    singleton_lookup_count,
    page_latch_wait_count ,
    page_latch_wait_in_ms,
    row_lock_count ,
    page_lock_count,
    row_lock_wait_in_ms ,
    page_lock_wait_in_ms,
    page_io_latch_wait_count ,
    page_io_latch_wait_in_ms
FROM sys.dm_db_partition_stats ps
    JOIN sys.tables t 
        ON ps.object_id = t.object_id
    JOIN sys.schemas s 
        ON t.schema_id = s.schema_id
    JOIN sys.indexes i 
        ON t.object_id = i.object_id
    AND ps.index_id = i.index_id
OUTER APPLY sys.dm_db_index_operational_stats(DB_ID(), NULL, NULL, NULL) ios                            
WHERE   
    ps.object_id = ios.object_id
    AND ps.index_id = ios.index_id
    AND ps.partition_number = ios.partition_number
    and ps.index_id = ios.index_id
    and ps.partition_number = ios.partition_number                                  
    and s.name <> 'sys'     
    and ps.index_id <> 0 ;

Relevant output (given the gap in SO's formatting of tables, this is a sample of the first 9 columns from the query above with last two columns being range_scan_count and singleton_lookup_count, respectively):

╔════════╦═════════════════╦════╦═══╦═══╦═══╦═══╦════════╦══════════╗
║ datetb ║ idx_datetb_col  ║  1 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 205740 ║  3486408 ║
║ datetb ║ idx_datetb_col  ║  2 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║  29617 ║  1079649 ║
║ datetb ║ idx_datetb_col  ║  3 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║  29617 ║  1174547 ║
║ datetb ║ idx_datetb_col  ║  4 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║  29617 ║  2952991 ║
║ datetb ║ idx_datetb_col  ║  5 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║  29617 ║  3974886 ║
║ datetb ║ idx_datetb_col  ║  6 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║  29617 ║  2931450 ║
║ datetb ║ idx_datetb_col  ║  7 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║  29617 ║  3316960 ║
║ datetb ║ idx_datetb_col  ║  8 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║  29617 ║  3393439 ║
║ datetb ║ idx_datetb_col  ║  9 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║  29617 ║  3735495 ║
║ datetb ║ idx_datetb_col  ║ 10 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║  29617 ║  4803804 ║
║ datetb ║ idx_datetb_col  ║ 11 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║  29617 ║  7655091 ║
║ datetb ║ idx_datetb_col  ║ 12 ║ 1 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 0 ║ 174326 ║ 47377226 ║
╚════════╩═════════════════╩════╩═══╩═══╩═══╩═══╩════════╩══════════╝

I see a few different possibility but I need some direction on how to think about this (of course I'm couching this in "may" because I know that "it depends", but I'm also looking for conceptual comprehension):

1. Similar values for all partitions of range_scan_count may indicate that we're not getting good partition elimination because we're scanning all partitions roughly the same number of times.
2. Varying values for all partitions of singleton_lookup_count accompanied with significantly lower values for range_scan_count may indicate good frequent partition elimination because we're scanning less than we're seeking.
3. ?

Those are my thoughts so far. I was hoping to have someone weigh in on how I could use this, or another set of information, to determine which tables would most likely benefit from dropping partitioning in favor of indexes altogether.

EDIT

Here's a clipped DDL:

CREATE TABLE [dbo].[date_table](
    [date_id] [int] NOT NULL,
    [calendar_date] [datetime] NULL,
    [valdate] [datetime] NULL,
        CONSTRAINT [PK_datedb] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED 
        (
            [date_id] ASC
        ) ON [partschm]([date_id]);

CREATE UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [idx_datetb_col] ON [dbo].[date_table]
(
    [calendar_date] DESC,
    [date_id] ASC
) ON [partschm]([date_id])
GO