Melissa Acuna

Kanale Rodriguez
Quiz 2

Part 1:

Professional Source Evaluation Matrix

Categories and descriptions Scores

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

Authorship All information Some It is difficult to No 3

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

Publisher Publisher is Publisher is Publisher is Publisher is 3

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

Currency The references The references The references There are no 2

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

Writing Written for Written for adult Written for Written for 3
professional lay audience adult lay children or
and academic with depth. audience and has no
audience. has minimal depth.
depth.
 Bias Issues are Issues are Arguments The source 2
examined fairly examined but about the relies mostly
using multiple mostly from one issue(s) are upon
perspectives side. The persuasive but opinions
and the writing source is not well rather than
is based upon persuasive and supported. The evidence or
facts and well language may research.
research rather researched. express a
than opinions. clear
preference for
one side of an
issue.

Relevance The The information The The 2

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

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. 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 there 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 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 regarding 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 a medium quality article, both
overall, and based on the three categories.

Part 2:

Lay Audience Source Evaluation

Categories and descriptions Scores

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

Authorship All information Some It is difficult to No 1

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

Publisher Publisher is Publisher is Publisher is Publisher is 2

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

Currency The references The references The references There are 2

are scholarly are scholarly are mostly no
and recent and 5-10 years scholarly but references
(within past 3-5 old but has are more than or
years) and are historical 10 years old references
relevant to the valueis and has little are non
topic or subject. considered a historical value scholarly.
classic article in or relevance to
the field or on the topic or
the subject subject.
material.
 Writing Written in depth Written in some Written for lay Written for 1
for adult lay depth for adult audience but professional
audience and lay audience lacks depth. or
uses minimal and uses academic
scientific minimal audiences
language (or scientific or for
such language language (or children.
is explained). such language
is mostly
explained).

Bias Issues are Issues are Arguments The source 2

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

Relevance The information The information The information The 2

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

Part 2 Reflection:
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 because 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 public that would have been 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 remain at a medium with the addition of the four
evaluation categories because the publisher and writing as always explains facts and
figures 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
relevant 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.