Quiz #2

(HSCI 617)

by:

Marissa Cruz

Carolina DeLeon

Anh Nguyen

Julian Sacdalan

California State University, San Bernardino

Part 1

Professional Source Evaluation matrix

Categories and descriptions Scores

3 = excellent 2 = good 1 = average 0 = poor

Authorship All information Some It is difficult to No 2

on authors’ information on identify any information
names, authors’ information on authors’
credentials, names, about authors names,
and affiliations credentials, but some credentials,
are clearly and affiliations information and
stated and are clearly is provided. affiliations
can be stated and can provided.
identified. be identified.

Publisher Publisher is Publisher is Publisher is Publisher is 2

reputable, i.e. reputable known but is unknown,
a well-known commercially not a i.e., a vanity
academic but perhaps respected or self-
press or is not academic or publisher.
publishing an academically commercial
academic such as press.
journal. publishing a
trade journal.

Currency The The references The There are 2

references are are scholarly references no
scholarly and and 5-10 years are mostly references
recent (within old but has scholarly but or
past 3-5 historical are more than references
years) and are value—is 10 years old are non
relevant to the considered a and has little scholarly.
topic or classic article historical
subject. in the field or value or
on the subject relevance to
material. the topic or
subject.

Writing Written for Written for Written for Written for 2

professional adult lay adult lay children or
and academic audience with audience and has no
audience. depth. has minimal depth.
depth.
 Bias Issues are Issues are Arguments The source 3
examined examined but about the relies mostly
fairly using mostly from issue(s) are upon
multiple one side. The persuasive opinions
perspectives source is but not well rather than
and the persuasive and supported. evidence or
writing is well The language research.
based upon researched. may express
facts and a clear
research preference for
rather than one side of an
opinions. issue.

Relevance The The The The 3

information information information information
directly may not has some has little to
supports the directly support relation to the no
topic and is the topic but is topic but is relationship
very useful. useful for not very to the topic
background useful. and is not
information. useful.

Reflection:

The quality of this article is rated as good (from a scale of excellent, good, fair,

poor) based on the different categories (See matrix above). First, the group members

checked the authorship because we believe that it is the most important part of a journal

article whether peer-reviewed or scholarly. The authors who contributed to this article

should have been credible in presenting any new ideas or studies to the different target

audience (usually researchers and professionals). We noticed that the article did not

mention the author's credentials if they are MD, PhD, and the like. Next, we considered

the content of the research. It was easy to understand, and the presentation of the data,

methods, results and discussions were also easy to comprehend.

Furthermore, this article used different studies and presented facts (Bias). The

information in this article did fully support and was related to the topic (Relevance). Most

of the references from this article are within 3 – 5 years but there were a couple of them
from more than ten years ago (Currency). These categories are more important than the

others because to make a journal review article valid, bias should be minimized to the

least, author’s credentials cannot be overlooked.

Moreover, we ranked the quality of the article as good based on our four chosen

evaluation categories because the article did not say much of the authors’ affiliations

and credentials. They are important because they determine the credibility of the

document. In addition, the article was written in a context easy to understand by the

readers whether they are lay audience, academia, researchers or professionals. The

article was organized and focused. It presented an argument well. It also used

numerous studies and perspectives in presenting their arguments. They also provided

illustrations such as tables which were easy to comprehend and relevant. Lastly, the

research had scholarly references which were not recent (10-year-old studies) however

they were relevant to the article.

There is no difference in the ranking of number 3 and 5 because in any article

evaluation the authorship should be the first thing to consider. Thus, in questions 3 and

5, we emphasized the significance of authorship in any article. The group also believed

after authorship, next important evaluation criteria was bias, followed by the relevance

and lastly the currency; we find this ranking to be the most effective way in evaluating

an article. The group knows that when an article is written by credible authors, the main

topic is presented in different perspectives and will be based on evidence and research

rather than opinions.

Lastly, this reflection teaches the group members to continue to learn about

information literacy since it is the set of skills needed to navigate research and it makes
our information understanding broader. As we continue to have a deepening

understanding of the information world, we will have the ability to synthesize information

which can be useful and valuable.

Part 2:

Lay Audience Source Evaluation Matrix

Categories and descriptions Score

s

3 = excellent 2 = good 1 = average 0 = poor

Authorshi All information Some It is difficult to No 1

p on authors’ information on identify any information
names, authors’ information on authors’
credentials, names, about authors names,
and affiliations credentials, but some credentials,
are clearly and affiliations information is and
stated and can are clearly provided. affiliations
be identified. stated and can provided.
be identified.

Publisher Publisher is Publisher is Publisher is Publisher is 3

reputable, i.e. a reputable known but is unknown,
well-known academically not a respected i.e., a self-
press for lay but perhaps for lay publisher or
audience not for lay audience predatory.
communication audience communication
. communication .
.

Currency The references The references The references There are 0

are scholarly are scholarly are mostly no
and recent and 5-10 years scholarly but references
(within past 3-5 old but has are more than or
years) and are historical 10 years old references
relevant to the value—is and has little are non
topic or considered a historical value scholarly.
subject. classic article or relevance to
in the field or the topic or
on the subject subject.
 material.

Writing Written in Written in Written for lay Written for 2

depth for adult some depth for audience but professiona
lay audience adult lay lacks depth. l or
and uses audience and academic
minimal uses minimal audiences
scientific scientific or for
language (or language (or children.
such language such language
is explained). is mostly
explained).

Bias Issues are Issues are Arguments The source 1

examined fairly examined but about the relies
using multiple mostly from issue(s) are mostly
perspectives one side. The persuasive but upon
and the writing source is not well opinions
is based upon persuasive and supported. The rather than
facts and well language may evidence or
research rather researched. express a clear research.
than opinions. preference for
one side of an
issue.

Relevance The The The The 1

information information information has information
directly may not some relation has little to no
supports the directly support to the topic but relationship to
topic and is the topic but is is not very the topic and
very useful. useful for useful. is not useful.
background
information.

Reflection:

This document ranks average (medium) on a scale from low to high; high

considered excellent for lay audience. Although the document is from a magazine a

familiar source for lay audience, the information does not relay supporting information

regarding marijuana use and bone health. Providing people's opinion concerning
marijuana use and not containing credible evidence to support the study. There is little

to no details on the authors' names, except for the study's leader’s name. The study's

methods are poorly explained. For instance, the author states cigarette users have

higher bone density than marijuana users. However, the author then states there is no

direct relationship between low bone density and marijuana users. Additionally, the

information is not relevant to human bone health; it listed a previous study on animals

with no supporting evidence on the cause-and-effect of marijuana use on humans.

Based on the evaluation categories we chose bias, relevance, and writing, we

found these categories essential when conducting a study, since they affect the validity

and reliability aspects. As public health students, we know that information literacy is

fundamental when researching information. Analyzing bias is important because it can

directly affect the results and methods of any study. Research funding may impact the

influence of the study’s overall findings. Relevance is an essential component; that

provides information associated with the topic of interest. Additionally, writing is also

critical because information should always be tailored to the appropriate audience. This

document had readability suitable for some adult lay audience; however, the

comprehension aspect is not 5 -grade level. With that being said, we chose to rank the
th

lay audience document as average. The document had bias opinions when it cited

physicians on bone health rather than professionals who have studied the effects of

marijuana over time. The material had some information not relevant to the main topic; it

addressed other issues such as eating healthy and exercising, which are not applicable

to marijuana use.
 Overall, both evaluations for question three and five were similar. We ranked

them average based on the information provided in each category. For instance, in

question three we stated the overall quality as average because it was not concise, and

it gave information regarding multiple topics that a lay audience may not relate to.

Furthermore, we analyzed the document based on the three categories we chose for

bias, relevance, and writing and provided concrete in depth reasons as to why the

material is not entirely suitable for lay audience.

For the professional source evaluation, we chose authorship, relevance,

currency, and bias. Relevance and bias are the same to the professional source

because we found it essential to analyze the documents for possible bias in the studies

as well as making sure that the information provided in both documents was relevant to

the main topic. We chose writing for the lay document because it lacked depth and

some words could have been simplified to make sure they are easy to understand by

the general population.