Skip to Main Content

How To Research: A Starter Kit


Evaluating resources for your assignments

Your instructor may ask you to evaluate your resources for credibility and bias before you use them. You may also want to be able to tell if you are reading fake news as you browse the Internet.

Below introduces various methods of evaluating resources. Explore these approaches and choose elements that work for your topic--no tool works for every problem. Some of these methods challenge traditional notions of bias and credibility, so consider asking yourself what credibility means to you. 

On this learning guide, you will find the following methods:

  • Authority
  • SIFT
  • Lateral Reading
  • The CRAAP Test
  • Evaluating Research Articles


Information resources reflect their creator's expertise and credibility and are evaluated based on the information need and the context in which the information will be used.  Authority is constructed in that various communities may recognize different types of authority.  It is contextual in that your information need may help to determine the level of authority required. 

Using this concept means you have to identify the different types of authority and why the author considers themselves credible, as well as why their community considers them credible. An author can be a person, journalist, scholar, organization, website. Author is different from authority, which is the quality that gives an author trustworthiness. 

Types of authority: 

  • Subject expertise
  • Society standing
  • Life Experience

Trustworthiness depends on:

  • Where did the information come from?
  • Who was it created for? 
  • How did they want you to use it?
  • What do you need it for?

SIFT (The Four Moves)

A short list of four things to do or moves that may help you sort fact from fiction. All four moves are meant to help you reconstruct the context you need to read your text. 

The moves are:

  1. Stop,
  2. Investigate the source,
  3. Find better coverage,
  4. Trace claims, quotes, and media to the original context. 

Lateral Reading

Related to SIFT, lateral reading is the third move of SIFT.  You are meant to leave the website you are evaluating to read elsewhere and check up on the content in the original website.

Three questions form the core of lateral reading:

  1. Who is behind the information?
  2. What is the evidence? 
  3. What do other sources say? 

The CRAAP Test

Sometimes also called the CRAP Test, use a checklist to read to your text and decide whether it is credible. CRAAP is an acronym for currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose.

When you read, look for...

  1. Currency (whether the text is up-to-date),
  2. Relevance (does it relate to your topic or research query)
  3. Authority (does the author have the credentialed expertise to speak),
  4. Accuracy (are the data correct), and
  5. Purpose (why does the author want you to read their text?). 

A variation of the CRAAP test is adapted from Palmquist, Mike. The Bedford Researcher. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins, 2018. Print.


Evaluate Relevance:

Does the source provide information you can use in your research? Can the source answer your research question directly?

Evaluate Evidence:

Is there enough evidence? Is the evidence the right kind? Is the evidence presented fairly? Are sources of evidence clearly identified?

Evaluate the author:

What are the authors credentials and experiences? Is the author knowledgeable? What are the author’s biases?

Evaluate the publisher:

What is the purpose and reputation of the publisher? How do the publisher’s bias affect the information, ideas and arguments?

Evaluate timelines:

Does the publication date affect the quality of evidence?

Evaluate comprehensiveness:

Does source complete and balanced evidence?

Evaluate genre:

What type of document/media is the source? How does that affect the information of the source?

Evaluating research articles

Evaluating evidence-based research articles in scholarly journals requires deep knowledge of the discipline, which you might not acquire until you are deeper into your education. These guiding questions can help you evaluate a research report, even if you aren't an expert in the field.

Questions include:

  1. Why was the study undertaken? 
  2. Who conducted the study? 
  3. Who funded the research? 
  4. How was the data collected? Is the sample size and response rate sufficient? 
  5. Does the research make use of secondary data? 
  6. Does the research measure what it claims to measure? 
  7. Can the findings be generalized to my situation, institution or country?

Sandstrom, A.-M. (2018, April 19). 8 ways to determine the credibility of research reports [Blog  post]. Retrieved from European Association for International Education website:

Recognizing Scholarly Sources

Scholarly Articles Checklist

  • Sources always documented in a bibliography, references or works cited list, or footnotes at the bottom of each page
  • Lengthy, often 10+ pages
  • Authors' affiliations listed - professors, scholars, or researchers
  • Describes the results of original research (e.g. experiments, case studies, or analyses)
  • Graphs, charts, tables, equations
  • Written for experts - use of jargon or technical language
  • Multiple authors
  • Long, descriptive title
  • Journal's title often begins with Journal of... or contains the words Review or Quarterly

How do articles get peer reviewed? What role does peer review play in scholarly research and publication? This video will explain.

  • Anne Burke: Project Co-Lead, Script, Storyboards
  • Andreas Orphanides: Project Co-Lead, Script, Technical Infrastructure
  • Hyun-Duck Chung: Original Script and Concept
  • Daria Dorafshar: Graphics and Animation
  • Kyle Langdon: Narration
  • Kim Duckett: Team Lead

license for creative commons

Information on this page was imported from the Research Overview Guide which was imported from Evaluation Sources learning guide created by Claire Murata.

Goucher College Library, 1021 Dulaney Valley Road, Baltimore, MD 21204 • 410-337-6360 • © 2013-2017 • Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.