1. EVALUATING
SOURCES
How to Recognize Quality Information

2. Library Sources vs. Web Sources

Restricted Publication

Open Publication

Fact Checked

Fact Checked ?

Edited

Edited ?

Revised

Revised ?

Peer Review Frequent

Peer Review Rare

Author and/or Publisher
Known

Author and/or Publisher
Known ?

3. Five Criteria to Consider: CRAAP
1. Currency
Is the information
up-to-date enough
for my topic ?
Rapid advancements in
science necessitate
looking for very current
information
Example: Cloning
Van't Hoog, A., de Cock
Buning, T., &
Hazekamp, A. (2000).
Dolly's deceiving
perfection:
Biotechnology, animal
welfare, and ethics.
Journal of Applied
Animal Welfare
Science, 3(1), 63-69.

4. Five Criteria to Consider (cont.)
2. Relevance
Example: Obesity Epidemic
Is the information
relevant and in
enough depth to
meet my needs ?
Taking weight-loss pills
can make you eat
more. (2013,
November 19).
Daily Mail. p. 28.
[135 words]

5. Five Criteria to Consider (cont.)
3. Authority
Who is responsible
for the content and
what are their
qualifications ?
Example: Government Spending
Deller, S. C., & Chicoine, D.
L. (1993).
Representative versus
direct democracy: A
test of allocative
efficiency in local
government
expenditures. Public
Finance Review, 21(1),
100-114.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/10911421930210
0105

6. Five Criteria to Consider (cont.)
4. Accuracy
Is the information
reliable and free
from error ?
Is the site free from
spelling and
grammatical errors
?
Are sources cited ?
Example: Aliens
Daniel P., W., & John
J., M. (2009). The
distribution of stars
most likely to
harbor intelligent
life. Astrobiology,
9(7), 617-621.

7. Five Criteria to Consider (cont.)
5. Purpose
Example: Gun Control
Is the information
presented without
bias or is the bias
acceptable for my
purpose ?
COULTER, A. (2012).
Trayvon and a
history of gun
rights. Human
Events, 68(14), 24.
Beware of sources
with hidden agendas

8. For More Information:
Information Evaluation Guide
http://libguides.sdstate.edu/information_evaluation