Skip to Main Content

Human Services Research Guide

Critical Thinking

Evaluation of Information Using Critical Thinking 

Remember...

  • You should strive to seek and include information from multiple sources when doing research instead of relying solely on one source (unless directed otherwise by your instructor). 
  • Consider the relevance of the information for your topic and the requirements of your project, assignment, or paper.
  • Peer-reviewed journal articles are generally considered to be the highest quality sources in their respective academic disciplines; however, peer review is not a perfect process. Problems such as poor quality control; institutional, racial, geographic, and gender biases; and limited numbers of volunteer reviewers have been noted (Proctor et al., 2023).
  • There is no such thing as an information source that is 100% objective. Even researchers who report quantitative data made decisions about which data to collect; how to collect, clean, and analyze it; and how to explain their findings. All these choices reflect human values and biases.

Information Source Evaluation Methods

The SIFT Model for Evaluating Online Information

SIFT (or the Four Moves) was developed by Mike Cauffield, a digital literacy educator, formerly of the University of Washington, Vancouver, in 2017. SIFT is an acronym standing for a series of 4 steps to take when encountering information online. Before accepting or sharing information, Cauffield encourages learners to 

  • S = Stop.
    Consider what you know about the topic and your own potential biases toward the information. Reject the inclination to react automatically without understanding what you are looking at. Remember your purpose for seeking information.
  • I = Investigate the source.
    What can you find out about its author/creator, and the overall website? Does the author/creator have a specific mission or a vested interest in the topic? If yes, this can bias the content and how it is presented. Is the information worth your time?
  • F = Find other coverage.
    What is the available coverage of the topic? Look for information on the topic in other sources to see if it agrees or disputes the claims of the first one. Do the additional sources provide more or less detail, context, or explanation?
  • T = Trace the claims...
    Trace the claims, quotes and media to the original context in which they were shared. Can you find the original sources? Is the information being represented accurately and fairly? Is the information being cherry-picked to advance a specific agenda or bias? Does the original meaning change when presented in a new context?

infographic showing the 4 moves method for evaluating information: Stop. Investigate the source. Find other coverage. Trace claims, media, quotes, etc.

View larger image

SIFT image by Mike Caulfield is licensed under CC BY 4.0

  • The SIFT Model includes a strategy called lateral reading, especially in the "Find better coverage" and "Trace claims, quotes, and media" steps.
    • James Madison University Libraries defines lateral reading as "the process of looking to other creditable sources to verify what you have read in the initial article."
    • Taking this step helps you avoid staying "trapped within" the original website or article and just taking it at face value. The recent and ongoing advancement of digital content creation tools, like those powered by AI, means it is easy to spin up a website that looks professional, even if the content is false, misleading, or made up. Going outside the original source to check its information in other sources can lessen the chances that you will be fooled by a non-credible source.

5-Star Information Source Evaluation Model

To thoroughly evaluate an information source, consider five areas: Author, Audience, Purpose, Content, and Context. See the diagram and text version for more details.

 

Diagram of 5-star source evaluation model showing components and related questions for Author, Audience, Purpose, Content, and Context. See text version for full details.

View larger image

Stars Explained

  • Author: Who is the author or publisher of the information? Do they have professional or personal expertise on the topic? Do they have a history of making or sharing content on this topic or related topics? How close or distanced are they to or from the information presented?
  • Audience: Who is the intended audience for the information? What level of background knowledge or experience is expected of audience members to be able to understand the content? Do other assumptions about the audience underlie how the information is presented? 
  • Purpose: Why was the information created or made available? What tone or attitude, if any, is used in the expression of the information. Also consider how the information is being shared. Is the content designed to inform or "go viral"?
  • Content: What types of content are included and is the information credible? Does the content include facts, statistics, and/or other data to provide evidence for claims? Can you check the information's agreement or accuracy when compared to other sources?
  • Context: What is happening historically, socially, and culturally when the information was created or shared? Does the source present the information from multiple perspectives or is it potentially leaving out important voices?

Total Stars

  • Quality of Your Review: Have you considered all five areas carefully? If yes, you have evaluated the information thoroughly. You have done a 5-star review!
  • Quality of the Information Source: For each area in which you assessed the information source favorably, give it a star. How many stars did the source get overall? 5-star sources are the types of sources you should try to include in your projects and papers.

RADAR Method for Evaluation Sources

RADAR is an acronym that stands for an approach developed by Jane Mandalios in 2013, while affiliated with the American College of Greece. It has been adapted by others with changes to some of the elements.

  • R = Relevance 
    How relevant is the information to your topic or the question you are trying to answer? 
  • A = Authority
    Who is the author and what makes them an expert on the topic? Are they affiliated with a university, research organization or lab, or medical facility? Do other sources cite this author? 
  • D = Date
    When was the information published? Is there more current information available on your topic? Has the knowledge about the topic changed in the time since the information was published?
  • A = Appearance/Accuracy
    The appearance of the information may give you some indication of the quality and date. Is the presentation professional? Is the design current including fonts and images? With the emergence of AI-generated text, images, and video, appearance is not always a great indicator of authenticity and quality.
    Check the information's accuracy by comparing its content with information in other sources. Does the information agree or diverge from what is in other sources?
  • R = Reason for Writing/Rationale
    Why was this information created or shared? What is its purpose? Does it emphasize a particular viewpoint or perspective and neglect others (bias)? 

This explanation was adapted from:

Mandalios, J. (2013). RADAR: An approach for helping students evaluate Internet sources. Journal of Information Science, 39(4), 470-478. https://doi-org/10.1177/0165551513478889 

William H. Hannon Library (2024, July 19). Evaluating sources: Using the RADAR framework. https://libguides.lmu.edu/aboutRADAR