HSCI 617_Fall 2017_Quiz 2

Part 1:
Anthony Olivar
Brailyn Bray
Caress Baltimore
Janelle Bayona

Professional Source Evaluation Matrix

Categories and descriptions Scores

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

Authorship All information Some information It is difficult to No information on

on authors on authors names, identify any authors names,
names, credentials, and information about credentials, and
credentials, and affiliations are authors but some affiliations 3
affiliations are clearly stated and information is provided.
clearly stated and can be identified. provided.
can be identified.
Publisher Publisher is Publisher is Publisher is known Publisher is
reputable, i.e. a reputable but is not a respected unknown, i.e., a
well-known commercially but academic or vanity or self-
academic press or perhaps not commercial press. publisher. 3
is publishing an academically such
academic journal. as publishing a trade
journal.
Currency The references are The references are The references are There are no
scholarly and scholarly and 5-10 mostly scholarly but references or
recent (within past years old but has are more than 10 references are non-
3-5 years) and are historical valueis years old and has scholarly.
relevant to the considered a classic little historical value 2
topic or subject. article in the field or or relevance to the
on the subject topic or subject.
material.
Writing Written for Written for adult lay Written for adult lay Written for children
professional and audience with depth. audience and has or has no depth.
academic minimal depth. 3
audience.
Bias Issues are Issues are examined Arguments about the The source relies
examined fairly but mostly from one issue(s) are mostly upon
using multiple side. The source is persuasive but not opinions rather than
perspectives and persuasive and well well supported. The evidence or
the writing is researched. language may research. 2
based upon facts express a clear
and research preference for one
rather than side of an issue.
opinions.
Relevance The information The information The information has The information has
directly supports may not directly some relation to the little to no
the topic and is support the topic but topic but is not very relationship to the
very useful. is useful for useful. topic and is not 3
background useful.
information.
HSCI 617_Fall 2017_Quiz 2
The overall quality of this article would be medium. Although the authors presented

current and relevant data for an academic audience, the study itself was underscored with

selection, bias as the data utilized heavily favored the usage of bicycle lanes. Overall, the article

provided useful information, data, and additional sources.

Evaluating this article, we think the most significant evaluation categories are bias,

relevance, and writing. Bias is an evaluation category because it has an impact on whether the

information presented is reliable and valid. Scoring a 2 in our matrix, we saw that the authors

used data more favorable to promoting bicycle lanes. The study compared crash data before and

after installment of bicycle lanes in certain areas of New York City, but used a 5-year period for

before data and a 2-year period for after data. The justification for the data collection

discrepancy was that crashes were rare events and using a longer before period provided the

opportunity to retrieve stable crash data. Relevance is an important evaluation category for this

article because the information provided within the research needs to support the topic being

discussed. Relevance scored a 3 and the information was very useful and pertinent to the

overall objective of the study, which was to evaluate the safety effects of bicycle lanes.

Information gathered to assess the effects of bicycle lanes and different categories of crashes

were from resources such as the U.S Census Bureau, which provided statistical data within the

economy. Finally, writing is an important evaluation category because it is clearly written for an

academic audience in an academic journal. Writing was scored as a 3 as there are multiple

references to supporting data and studies to strengthen the identification of bicycle safety as a

problem and describe why this particular study needed to be conducted. Much of the

terminology within the article was explained and the article was written in a manner that made it

easy to read and understand; however, we gathered that the authors were targeting an academic

audience. This is based upon the inclusion of statistical analysis with the Generalized Estimating
HSCI 617_Fall 2017_Quiz 2
Equation (GEE) methodology, Poisson model, and negative binomial regression model to

evaluate crash data.

Based on our evaluation categories, we would still rank the overall quality of our article

as medium. While we ranked most of our evaluation categories as Excellent within our

professional source evaluation matrix, we recognized the bias within our article quickly, which

resulted in a good rating for that category. Recognizing the bias provided us with the insight

to appreciate the data presented, but be wary of its reliability. There is no difference in our

ranking for overall evaluation of the article and evaluation of the article after taking into account

the chosen evaluation categories. Our overall rating of the article and rating based on the

evaluation categories remained the same, because it was a good article, but it had flaws and was

not superior.
HSCI 617_Fall 2017_Quiz 2
Part 2:
Anthony Olivar
Brailyn Bray
Caress Baltimore
Janelle Bayona

Lay Audience Source Evaluation

Categories and descriptions Scores

3 = excellent 2 = good 1 = average 0 = poor
Authorship All information Some information It is difficult to No information on
on authors on authors names, identify any authors names,
names, credentials, and information about credentials, and
credentials, and affiliations are authors but some affiliations 2
affiliations are clearly stated and information is provided.
clearly stated and can be identified. provided.
can be identified.
Publisher Publisher is Publisher is Publisher is known Publisher is
reputable, i.e. a reputable but is not a respected unknown, i.e., a
well-known press academically but for lay audience self-publisher or
3
for lay audience perhaps not for lay communication. predatory.
communication. audience
communication.
Currency The references are The references are The references are There are no
scholarly and scholarly and 5-10 mostly scholarly but references or
recent (within past years old but has are more than 10 references are non-
3-5 years) and are historical valueis years old and has scholarly.
1
relevant to the considered a classic little historical value
topic or subject. article in the field or or relevance to the
on the subject topic or subject.
material.
Writing Written in depth Written in some Written for lay Written for
for adult lay depth for adult lay audience but lacks professional or
audience and uses audience and uses depth. academic audiences
minimal scientific minimal scientific or for children. 2
language (or such language (or such
language is language is mostly
explained). explained).
Bias Issues are Issues are examined Arguments about the The source relies
examined fairly but mostly from one issue(s) are mostly upon
using multiple side. The source is persuasive but not opinions rather than
perspectives and persuasive and well well supported. The evidence or
the writing is researched. language may research. 1
based upon facts express a clear
and research preference for one
rather than side of an issue.
opinions.
Relevance The information The information The information has The information has
directly supports may not directly some relation to the little to no
the topic and is support the topic but topic but is not very relationship to the
3
very useful. is useful for useful. topic and is not
background useful.
information.
HSCI 617_Fall 2017_Quiz 2

The overall quality of this article was medium. Although the author attempted to

promote the benefits of green bike safety lanes, selection bias underscored the article, without

presenting both sides of the issue, such as the cost to the city, barriers preventing

implementation, or benefits of green bike lanes in use today. Overall, the article had good

content for a lay audience, but it was not well edited or unbiased.

Evaluating this article, the most significant evaluation categories are publisher, currency,

and bias. Publisher is an important evaluation category as most readers mistake popularity for

credibility. We scored this category as a 3, because USA Today is a popular newspaper and

most readers accept the information as valid. Currency is important because current and relevant

sources provide the lay audience with the ability to form their own conclusions. Scoring a 1 in

the matrix, there were few factual sources in this. Instead, the articles primary sources were the

opinions of college students. Since this article targeted students, it would have been more

beneficial to have facts presented rather than just the opinions of other people. Finally, bias is a

key component in the evaluation of this article because many individuals use this publisher to

find relevant college information and expect to be able to make decisions based upon the

information presented. Bias as an evaluation category scored 1 as this article only provided

interviews from college students interested in having green safety lanes. The article did not

present any information identifying the pros or cons of green safety lanes.

Based on the evaluation categories publisher, currency, and bias, we would rank the

quality of this article as low. Although the information was well written for a lay audience,

each of our chosen evaluation categories with the exception of publisher, were scored as 1. As

stated above, the lack of concrete evidence and biases in this article can be considered flaws

resulting in low scores. The ranking worsened between overall evaluation of the article and

evaluation of the article after taking into account our chosen evaluation categories, going from
HSCI 617_Fall 2017_Quiz 2
medium to low. After scoring the evaluation categories, we realized the article missed the

mark when it was evaluated in terms of currency of sources and bias of content.

Between the professional source evaluation and lay audience source evaluation, the only

similar evaluation category used was bias. Biases for both types of articles are important to

examine due to the credibility of the information being presented. For the professional source,

our two other evaluation categories included Writing and Relevance. Given that the audiences

for academic journals use the information for research and academic purposes, the language and

relevance should be elevated and concise. For the lay article, we identified its flaws within the

publisher and currency categories. The major difference in a professional source and lay article

depend on the target audience, which ultimately determines what kind of language is appropriate

to use.