Critical Evaluation: Criteria Checklist Approach: CRAAP

Learn how to critically evaluate the sources you are using so that you can confidently provide these as evidence in your work.

Currency Relevance Authority Accuracy Purpose

There are different models and criteria that you can use to help you to make an informed decision on whether it is a reliable source to which you can refer in your academic work.

One of these models, the CRAAP test (Meriam Library, 2019) can help you to systematically consider different characteristics of any source of information: CurrencyRelevance,  Authority,  Accuracy, and Purpose.

Whichever model you choose, be aware of the limitations of using "evaluation checklists".

 

Currency

  • When was the source of information published?
    • Are you required to only refer to sources of information published within a certain time-period?
  • Is there more current data available?
  • Has the information been challenged, revised or superseded by more current data or a more recent edition?

 

Relevance

  • Is the information relevant to your topic? Does it answer your question?
  • Is the source of information aimed at a particular audience or is it pitched at a level that is appropriate for academic purposes?

 


 

Authority

  • Who is the author/publisher/sponsor for the source of information?
  • What are the author's credentials and qualifications?; are they suitably qualified to write such a piece?
  • Does the publisher have a good reputation for academic publications?
  • Is there a conflict of interest or potential bias arising from the sponsor, author's employer or owner of the source? 
  • Do you need information from a specific country? US law, for example, is different from UK law. Scottish law may well be different to English law.
  • Experts ask these questions to make inferences about a journal:
    • Is this a peer-reviewed journal?
    • Is this journal well-respected in the subject field? There are lists that rank academic journals.
    • For how long has it been published?
    • Is this the publication of a professional institution or society?
    • Does it have an editorial board and advisers who have a publishing background?

 


 

Accuracy

  • Is the information supported by evidence, for example: verifiable references which you can check and/or research data?
  • Has the article been peer-reviewed?
  • Can you verify any of the information in a different, reputable source?
  • Can you trust the source? Questions that you can ask are: how good does the source look? are there any factual errors or out of date information? how good is the quality of the writing - are there mistakes in the spelling or grammar? can you communicate with the author and with whom is the author affiliated?

 


 

Purpose

  • What is the purpose of the information? Is it to inform, entertain, sell, or persuade?
    • Is there an obvious financial benefactor or sponsor associated with the source of information?
  • Is the information substantiated with a high standard of evidence or is it simply opinion or propaganda?
  •  Is there discussion of the theoretical background?
  • Are there potential political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional or personal biases?

 


 

Limitations of the "evaluation checklists"

Students are often recommended to evaluating webpages with a checklist approach such as:

  • The CRAAP test (Meriam Library, 2019): Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy and Purpose.
  • RADAR (Mandalios, 2013, PDF): Relevance, Authority, Date, Appearance, Reason for writing.
  • The SIFT method (Hapgood, 2019): Stop, Investigate the source, Find better coverage and Trace claims to the original context.
  • The Trust in Online Health Information (TOHI) scale, used in a health context, that features brand, content, credibility, ease of use, recommendation, style, usefulness and verification (Rowley et al., 2015).

Using these features is a "fairly reliable process for evaluating sources" (Chinn and Rinehart, 2017: 1714). The checklist approach is an efficient way of evaluating sources, can easily be applied and uses memorable acronyms.

However, this efficiency encourages surface evaluation, can exclude sources that may be relevant and ignores the actual claims made in the source (Kim and Hannafin, 2016).

The checklist approach therefore needs to be augmented by emphasising the processes used by the source in its creation.

"Knowing the processes used by sources provides a more accurate evaluation of the credibility of the source's claims than relying solely on the source feature" (Chinn and Rinehart, 2017: 1711).