Melissa Acuna

Kanale Rodriguez
Quiz 2

Part 1:

Professional Source Evaluation Matrix

Categories and descriptions Scores

3= 2 = good 1 = average 0 = poor

excellent

Authors All Some It is difficult to No 3

hip information information on identify any information
on authors authors information on authors
names, names, about authors names,
credentials, credentials, but some credentials,
and and affiliations information is and
affiliations are clearly provided. affiliations
are clearly stated and provided.
stated and can be
can be identified.
identified.

Publish Publisher is Publisher is Publisher is Publisher is 3

er reputable, reputable known but is unknown,
i.e. a well- commercially not a i.e., a vanity
known but perhaps respected or self-
academic not academic or publisher.
press or is academically commercial
publishing such as press.
an publishing a
academic trade journal.
journal.

Currenc The The The There are no 2

y references references are references are references or
are scholarly and mostly references
scholarly 5-10 years old scholarly but are non
and recent but has are more than scholarly.
(within past historical 10 years old
3-5 years) valueis and has little
and are considered a historical
relevant to classic article value or
 the topic or in the field or relevance to
subject. on the subject the topic or
material. subject.

Writing Written for Written for Written for Written for 3

professiona adult lay adult lay children or
l and audience with audience and has no depth.
academic depth. has minimal
audience. depth.

Bias Issues are Issues are Arguments The source 2

examined examined but about the relies mostly
fairly using mostly from issue(s) are upon
multiple one side. The persuasive but opinions
perspective source is not well rather than
s and the persuasive supported. evidence or
writing is and well The language research.
based upon researched. may express a
facts and clear
research preference for
rather than one side of an
opinions. issue.

Relevan The The The The 2

ce information information information information
directly may not has some has little to
supports directly relation to the no
the topic support the topic but is not relationship
and is very topic but is very useful. to the topic
useful. useful for and is not
background useful.
information.

Reflection:
The article by Hanson et al. strives to establish a relationship between Adderall use among
college students and the social media presence the drug has on Twitter, a popular social media
platform. The article itself would be of medium quality for several reasons based on its average
ranking of bias, relevancy, and currency. The first being that the relevancy is somewhat
conflicting. While some information remains important and relevant, such as the importance of
social media and misperception of peer drug use, the method of only observing tweets leaves a
weak association between the popularity of a term on the internet, and actual abuse of the drug.
In order for the research to have more validity behind it, researchers should have done a more
qualitative based study, especially since this was the first of its kind according to the article. This
leads into the slight bias in the paper. For the authors to state that there is a correlation between
the use of adderall use and the spike in tweets regarding Adderall, leading to a normative view
of the drug leads me to believe that their is a large bias towards their hypothesis. As stated in
the article, only about of college aged students use twitter on a regular basis, and perhaps
even less because of stigma and fear around abusing drugs. It would seem rather
presumptuous to say that the trends of college student tweets are synonymous with their
behaviors if only a select group is being observed. Lastly, the currency of the reference papers
covers a wide variety of college drug abuse topics in a way that sets the foundation for the
paper. The references provided some background data that was useful and relevant when
observing young adults behaviors, norms, and perceptions. All three factors: currency,
relevancy, and bias all play a large part when determining the quality of a research paper. If the
basic foundation of research and background knowledge is poor, the resulting study will lack in
quality. Also, if there are major biases, the entire study begins to lose value and validity. Overall,
the article provided some great insight about the role social media has in regards to creating
norms and perceptions, especially among college students. However, the methods surrounding
the study does not seem like the strongest argument the researchers could have made.
Therefore, the article averages out to about an medium quality article, both overall, and based
on the three categories.
Part 2:
Using the lay audience source evaluation matrix below provide scores that best reflects your
judgment for each category about the lay audience audience document provided.

Then choose three or four of the most important evaluation categories based upon your
judgment (and readings). Write a reflection in concise sentences (250-500 word, double or
single spaced, word document format [.doc or .docx]).

In your reflection submission, you should address the following:

1) Your names. Not included in word count.
2) Your matrix with scores. Not included in word count.
3) How well would you rank the over all quality of the document and why? For example,
consider superior, medium, or low or excellent-poor.
4) Why did you choose the 3-4 evaluation categories? What makes them more important that
the others?
5) How well would you rank the quality of the document based on your 3-4 chosen evaluation
categories and why? For example, consider superior, medium, or low or excellent-poor.
6) Is there a difference in your ranking in numbers 3 and 5? If so, why or why not? Think about
this-what does it say about your chosen 3-4 categories based on your answer to this question.
7) Are your chosen 3-4 evaluation categories same as for professional source evaluation?
Why or why not and reflect on the similarities/differences.

Lay Audience Source Evaluation

Categories and descriptions Scores

3= 2 = good 1 = average 0 = poor

excellent

Author All Some It is difficult to No

ship information information on identify any information
on authors authors information on authors
names, names, about authors names,
credentials, credentials, but some credentials,
and and affiliations information is and
affiliations are clearly provided. affiliations
are clearly stated and provided.
stated and can be
can be identified.
 identified.

Publish Publisher is Publisher is Publisher is Publisher is 2

er reputable, reputable known but is unknown,
i.e. a well- academically not a i.e., a self-
known press but perhaps respected for publisher or
for lay not for lay lay audience predatory.
audience audience communicatio
communicati communicatio n.
on. n.

Curren The The The There are no

cy references references are references are references or
are scholarly and mostly references
scholarly 5-10 years old scholarly but are non
and recent but has are more than scholarly.
(within past historical 10 years old
3-5 years) valueis and has little
and are considered a historical
relevant to classic article value or
the topic or in the field or relevance to
subject. on the subject the topic or
material. subject.

Writing Written in Written in Written for lay Written for 1

depth for some depth audience but professional
adult lay for adult lay lacks depth. or academic
audience audience and audiences or
and uses uses minimal for children.
minimal scientific
scientific language (or
language (or such language
such is mostly
language is explained).
explained).
 Bias Issues are Issues are Arguments The source 2
examined examined but about the relies mostly
fairly using mostly from issue(s) are upon
multiple one side. The persuasive but opinions
perspectives source is not well rather than
and the persuasive supported. evidence or
writing is and well The language research.
based upon researched. may express a
facts and clear
research preference for
rather than one side of an
opinions. issue.

Releva The The The The 2

nce information information information information
directly may not has some has little to
supports the directly relation to the no
topic and is support the topic but is not relationship
very useful. topic but is very useful. to the topic
useful for and is not
background useful.
information.

Groups Professional Lay audience document

document

1. HIV Hightow- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hiv-vs-measles/

prevention Weidman et al.
2017

2. Stress Poorolajal et al. https://www.scientificamerican.com/video/why-stress-is-

management 2017 good-for-you2013-05-21/

3. Hanson et al. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-opioid-

Prescription 2013 crisis-is-squeezing-small-town-finances/
drug

4. Bike Chen et al. 2012 http://college.usatoday.com/2013/01/17/lacking-protected-

safety bike-lanes-student-cyclists-face-danger/
5. Marijuana Malouff et al. http://www.health.com/healthday/marijuana-may-blunt-
2016 bone-health

6. Food Hosler and https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/the-

insecurity Michaels 2017 return-of-american-hunger/492062/

7. Healthy TBD TBD

relations

8. Domestic Kecojevic et al. http://www.health.com/healthday/gun-surrender-laws-

violence 2012 help-women-threatened-domestic-violence

If any link or document is not working, the groups must notify instructor at least one week before
due date.
Melissa Acuna
Kanale Rodrigues

Quiz # 2 part 2

The lay article discussed the topic of prescription drug use among the states located in
the north east the United States that have a high rate of drug prescription drug (opioid)
overdose deaths as well increased costs on maintain the prescription drug situation. The overall
quality of the document would receive a score of a medium on the ranking score provided for
the reasons that the article had facts and percentage that explains why the opioid crisis needs
more attention and even provided a link that gave that explained the different types of opioids
medication used. However, in terms as being a lay article for the general public that would have
been really hard to understand the way the author added many percentages in the text that
could have confused the reader as well as terminology such as epidemic and morphine were
used without proper explanation first. In the chart above the four evaluation categories were
chosen publisher, writing, bias, and relevance. The reason for choosing the above evaluation
categories rather than authorship and currency was that since authorship reflects the others
reporting past really isnt relative to proving an article to the general lay audience. As for
currency in terms of writing for academic paper journals would a must to gather data, since this
is a lay article facts and figures from state/ government websites would work instead. The
overall score of the article would remains at a medium with the addition of the four evaluation
categories for the reasons that the publisher and writing as always explains facts and figures
really well however in terms of being understandable by lay reader does not break down
scientific terms to be understood better. As for the strengths of the article the author presents no
bias rather than reflecting on data gathered and the article is revalent because opioid deaths is
a problem both in mortality rate and high cost to maintain the opioid use aftermath. As for the
similarities between the two articles being relevant the topic of drug abuse among its target
audiences. A difference between the two articles would be writing to the specific audience that
the author is trying reach using terms that is meant to be understood by the reader. In the case
of the journal article focused on college students as their target audience. The author of the lay
article used terms that would be hard for a person without a little of a background in science or
the ability to understand percentages would not be able to understand the article to well.