Evaluating Sources

When evaluating sources, we look at quality, accuracy, relevance, bias, reputation, currency, and credibility factors in a specific work. This article breaks down the questions to ask yourself when evaluating a source – who, what, where, when, and why (sometimes we also need to add "how") – it then summarises these into the 5Ws. What are your 5Ws?

5.1.1 Evaluating Books

5.1.3 Evaluating Journal Articles

It is likely that most of the resources you locate for your review will be from the scholarly literature of your discipline or in your topic area. As we have already seen, peer-reviewed articles are written by and for experts in a field. They generally describe formal research studies or experiments with the purpose of providing insight on a topic. You may have located these articles through Google, Google Scholar, a subscription or open access database, or citation searching. You now may want to know how to evaluate the usefulness for your research. As with the other resources, you are again looking for authority, accuracy, reliability, relevance, currency, and scope. Looking at each article as a separate and unique artifact, consider these elements in your evaluation:


5.1.3.1 Credibility/Authority

ASK: Who is the author? Is this person considered an expert in their field?

  • Search the author's name in a general web search engine like Google.
  • What are the researcher's academic credentials?
  • What else has this author written? Search by author in the databases and see how much they have published on any given subject.
  • How often or frequently has this article been cited by other scholars?

Citation analysis is the study of the impact and assumed quality of an article, an author, or an institution, based on the number of times works and/or authors have been cited by others. Google Scholar is a good way to get at this information.

Figure 5.1 Google Scholar


5.1.3.2 Accuracy

Check the facts. ASK:

  • Can statistics be verified through other sources?
  • Does this information seem to fit with what you have read in other sources?


5.1.3.3 Reliability/Objectivity

ASK: Is there an obvious bias? That doesn't mean that you can't use the information, it just means you need to take the bias into account.

  • Is a particular point of view or bias immediately obvious, or does it seem objective at first glance?
  • What point of view does the author represent? Are they clear about their point of view?
  • Is the article an editorial that is trying to argue a position?
  • Is the article in a publication with a particular editorial position?


5.1.3.4 Relevance

ASK: The hard questions:

  • Is the information relevant to your topic/thesis?
  • How does the article fit into the scope of the literature on this topic?
  • Who is the intended audience for this source?
    • Is the material too technical or too clinical?
    • Is it too elementary or basic?
  • Does the information support your thesis or help you answer your question, or is it a challenge to make some kind of connection?
  • Does the information present an opposite point of view so you can show that you have addressed all sides of the argument in your paper?


5.1.3.5 Currency

ASK:

  • When was the source published?
  • How important is current information to your topic, discipline, or paper type?
  • Does older material add to the history of the research? Or do you need something more current to support your thesis?

5.1.3.6 Scope and Purpose

To determine and evaluate in this category, ASK:

  • Is it a general work that provides an overview of the topic or is it specifically focused on only one aspect of your topic?
  • Does the breadth of the work match your expectations?
  • Is the article meant to inform, explain, persuade or sell something. Be aware of the purpose as you read the content and take that into consideration when deciding whether to use it or not.

For Nursing and other medical articles ASK:

  • What are the research methods used in the article?
  • Where does the method fall in the evidence pyramid? Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are the most credible, with articles that are opinions the least credible.

Figure 5.2 Evidence Pyramid
  • Meta Analysis: A systematic review that uses quantitative methods to summarize the results.
  • Systematic Review: An article in which the authors have systematically searched for, appraised, and summarized all of the medical literature on a specific topic.
  • Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs): RCTs include a randomized group of patients in an experimental group, as well as a control group. These groups are monitored for the variables/outcomes of interest.
  • Cohort Study: Research identifies two groups (cohorts) of patients, one which did receive the exposure of interest, and one which did not, and follows these cohorts for a specified duration of time, in order to measure the outcome of interest.
  • Case Study: Involves identifying patients who have the outcome of interest (cases) and control patients without the same outcome, and looks to see if they had the exposure of interest.
  • Animal Research / Lab Studies: Information creation begins at the bottom of the pyramid: This is where ideas and laboratory research take place. Ideas turn into therapies and diagnostic tools, which are then tested with lab models and animals.
  • Background Information / Expert Opinion: Handbooks, encyclopedias, and textbooks often provide a good foundation or introduction and often include generalized information about a condition. While background information presents a convenient summary, it typically takes about three years for this type of literature to be published.