5 Using credible sources
Lisa Bartee and Christine Anderson
Learning Objectives
Course Objective for this section: Select, evaluate, and utilize discipline-specific information and literature to explore topics.
- Identify appropriate credible sources of information to research a topic.
- Evaluate sources of information for their strengths and weaknesses.
Regardless of the specific career you eventually pursue, everyone needs to be able to identify credible sources to use in order to answer questions. Whether you want to research something relatively simple and personal, such as whether a specific dietary supplement will benefit you, or something complex and broad such as the pros and cons of stem cell research, it is of vital importance to identify and use credible sources.
Types of Sources
Whether conducting research in the social sciences, humanities (especially history), arts, or natural sciences, the ability to distinguish between primary and secondary source material is essential. Basically, this distinction illustrates the degree to which the author of a piece is removed from the actual event being described. This means whether the author is reporting information first hand (or is first to record these immediately following an event), or conveying the experiences and opinions of others—that is, second hand. In biology, the distinction would be between the person (or people) who conducted the research and someone who didn’t actually do the research, but is merely reporting on it.
In science, it is often extremely difficult to read and understand primary articles (journal articles written by the scientists who conducted the research) unless you are an expert in that specific scientific field. Don’t feel bad if you struggle to read scientific journal articles – Dr Bartee couldn’t read them effectively until midway through graduate school! Secondary sources are typically easier to read and can give you the important information from a primary source, but only if the secondary source has interpreted the information correctly! It is always better to go to the primary source if possible because otherwise you are relying on someone else’s interpretation of the information. However, it is always better to use a source that you can read and understand rather than a source that you can’t. For this reason, it is very important to be able to identify credible secondary sources.
Evaluating Credibility
When you write a scientific paper (or any paper, really), you want to back up your statements with credible sources. You will need to identify credible sources to help you research scientific topics or to help you develop interesting scientific questions. You will also need sources to help you form a well-educated hypothesis that is not just based on your guess about what will happen. A credible source is one that is trustworthy from which the information can be believed. Credible sources are written by people who are experts in the field (or at least are very knowledgeable) about the subject that they are commenting on.
We will be using a variation of the CRAAP test to help you determine whether or not sources that you find are credible or not. The CRAAP Test was created by Sarah Blakeslee, of the University of California at Chico’s Meriam Library. It is adapted below. When evaluating the credibility of sources using this method, if it’s CRAAP, it’s good!
CRAAP Test
| Currency | Is the information up to date? When was it published or last revised? For fast-moving fields like medicine and genetics, recent sources (within the past several years) are usually better. Older sources can be used as long as the information is confirmed to still be true using newer sources. |
| Relevance | Does it directly address your topic? Is it detailed and appropriately technical for college-level work? |
| Authority | Who is the indivudal author or organization that wrote this article? Are they qualified? Look for academic affiliations or government agencies. Domains like .edu and .gov are often more reliable. You may have learned that .org domains are also good to use, but this may or may not be true. Many .org websites belong to credible, reliable organizations, but in reality anyone can purchase and run a .org website. |
| Accuracy | Are claims supported by evidence, citations to other reliable sources, or provided data? Can you verify the same facts elsewhere? Check for typos or factual errors. |
| Purpose | Why was this written? Is it meant to inform, persuade, or sell something? Watch out for bias, extreme language, or one-sided arguments. |
Red Flags to Watch For
- No author or credentials listed (an article with no specific author listed, but that was written by staff of a credible organization is ok).
- Overly dramatic, emotional, or biased tone.
- No citations or references, or citations that refer back to articles written by the same individual / organization.
- Outdated information (especially for biology topics)
- Published on a blog, forum, or non-reviewed site without expert oversight (expert oversight includes being written or edited by staff of a credible organization)
You can use the table below to help you evaluate the credibility of your sources.
Credibility Table
| Factors to consider | Least reliable
(0 points) |
Possibly reliable
(1 point) |
Most reliable
(2 points) |
| Currency | No date of publication or revision given | Outdated for this particular topic | Recently published or revised |
| Reliable source | Unreliable website, no additional info available | Possibly reliable | Official government or organization, institutional sites, academic journals |
| Author | No author is given / the author is not qualified to write about this topic | Author is educated on topic or is staff of an organization assumed to be knowledgeable on this specific topic | Specifically identified expert in this field with degrees / credentials in this subject |
| Accuracy | No review process and information is not supported by evidence from cited sources | The information may have been reviewed or edited by someone knowledgeable in the field. It mentions but does not directly cite other sources | The information has been peer reviewed and is supported by evidence from cited credible sources |
| Purpose | Obviously biased or trying to sell you something | Sponsored source; may present unbalanced information | Balanced, neutral, presents all sides of the issue fully |
In general, do not use a source if it doesn’t pass the CRAAP test! For our purposes, do not use any sources that score less than 6 points using the credibility table.
Several examples are given below for sources that you might come across if you were researching the topic of vaccine safety.
Example 1:
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Aug 28, 2015. Vaccine Safety [Internet]. [cited May 12, 2016]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/index.html
| Score | Discussion – why did you give that score? | |
| Currency | 2 | Aug 28 2015 is recent and shows that this information is updated frequently. |
| Reliable source | 2 | I looked at the “about this organization” and learned that the CDC is a major government organization that works to protect Americans from health, safety, and security threats. They are a division of the US department of health and human services. |
| Author | 1 | A specific author was not identified, but the page states that the content is from the CDC, which suggests that it was written by a knowledgeable staff member. |
| Accuracy | 1.5 | No information is given about the review process, but it was probably edited by staff at the CDC. There is a list of citations and links to primary scientific articles supporting the information. |
| Purpose | 2 | The point of view does not appear to be biased because it seems to be presenting factual information. Admittedly, it only presents the pro-vaccine side of the argument. There are no ads on the page or other information trying to change the reader’s viewpoint. |
| Credibility Score | 8.5/10 | This seems like an excellent source to use for research. It’s readable and I could look at the primary articles if I wanted to check them out. |
Example 2:
Stop Mandatory Vaccination. N.d.. The Dangers of Vaccines and Vaccinations [Internet]. [cited May 12, 2016]. Available from: http://www.stopmandatoryvaccination.com/vaccine-dangers/
| Score | Discussion – why did you give that score? | |
| Currency | 1 | The copyright is given as 2015, but there is no date for this specific article. It does reference something that took place in 2015, so it is likely written after that. |
| Reliable source | 0 | The “About” page states that the organization was started by Larry Cook using a GoFundMe platform |
| Author | 0 | Larry Cook has been devoted to the natural lifestyle for 25 years, but doesn’t appear to have any degrees or specific expertise on this topic. Other contributing authors include Landee Martin, who has a Bachelor’s of Science in Psychology (which isn’t related to vaccine safety), and Brittney Kara, who is a mother who has studied holistic living for the last 17 years. None of the individuals specifically identified on the website appear to be experts in the field. |
| Accuracy | 0.5 | It seems unlikely that there is any review process. There are links to several sources, but none of them appear to be primary scientific articles. Several are links to interviews. |
| Purpose | 0 | This source is extremely biased. Even the name of the website is biased. There is a link to donate to the webpage. There are at least 10 ads for anti-vaccine books and websites. |
| Credibility Score | 1.5/10 | I would not want to use this source to research this topic. It’s extremely biased and doesn’t seem to offer much evidence for its assertions. |
Sources
“Distinguish Between Primary and Secondary Sources” by University of California, Santa Cruz, University Library is licensed under CC BY 3.0
“Distinguish between Popular and Scholarly Journals” by University of California, Santa Cruz, University Library is licensed under CC BY 3.0
