Look at the the information given for each criteria for evaluation. As a resource to use would you give it a
|thumbs up (Good)|
|wavering thumb (Maybe)|
|thumbs down (Bad)|
|Click on the Reveal panel to find out the answer.|
Look back on all the answers for the different criteria, then decide whether you would use the resource or not.
Click on the 'Should this resource be used?' link to check your answer.
Note: mobile device users may not be able to use the mouse over option. The answers for each example criteria can be found when you click on the 'Should this resource be used?' link.
Edmonds, M. (2014) Managing the diabetic foot. 3rd edn. Chichester. Wiley Blackwell.
What – although the book is about diabetes it is too detailed for your assignment and therefore not relevant this time
Who - checking on Hunter shows that the author has written other books
Why – this is an academic textbook written to inform, not persuade
When - the book is up to date
How – the book has been selected by the library as an appropriate resource
What=Bad Who=Good Why=Good When=Good How=Good
|Conclusion||Whilst it did well in a lot of the criteria, the book is too detailed to be relevant and should not be used for the assignment.|
Whitmore, C. (2010) ‘Type 2 diabetes and obesity in adults’, British Journal of Nursing 19 (14) pp. 880-886
What - the article addresses the assignment topic at the right level
Who - a search shows that the author is a research nurse in diabetes and obesity
Why - the journal article is intended to summarise current knowledge and understanding of this topic
When - the article was published a few years ago.
How - the British Journal of Nursing is a peer reviewed journal
What=Good Who=Good Why=Good When=Maybe How=Good
|Conclusion||This article contains good information and it is from an authoritative source but it is a bit old, so it may not have the most up to date information. Can you find a more recent article? If there is nothing more current, then it is okay to use this article.|
What – the site may give you useful background information but is not suitable as an academic source for your assignment.
Who – the web site is supported by Boots and WebMD. They are commercial companies which is indicated by .com in the address.
Why – there are lots of links to products you can buy so there is a clear intention to sell as well as inform.
When – the copyright on the site covers 2009-2014 but you can’t tell when individual pages were written or reviewed.
How – the About Us section states that all the content is reviewed by UK doctors
What=Maybe Who=Bad Why=Maybe When=Maybe How=Good
|Conclusion||This website contains some useful background information, however, as it's a commercial site, it is not suitable to use in an academic assignment. Pay attention to the ending of a URL, if it says 'com', it's a commercial site; if it is 'org.uk' then it is a not for profit, or charitable organisation; if it's 'ac.uk' or 'edu' this means it has been produced by an educational institution.|