Evaluating Websites

Description

Select a topic using applicable keyword(s)
- Your choice of a topic can be clinical (e.g. COVID-19, asthma in children, mental health, etc), administration (e.g. nursing organization), education, research, or informatics
Search the Internet using the search engine(s) of your choice
Find three relevant websites of interest to you
- Note that websites can be nursing organizations (e.g. emergency room nurses organization), government websites (e.g. AHRQ, CDC, NIH), education (e.g. university website), and/or commercial websites
Include the following information in your evaluation by describing…
- Purpose of your search
- Search engine(s) used
- The reason you chose the websites that you did, the process involved in your search (e.g. where you started and why, 2nd site and why, 3rd site and why), and how you determine the “reliability” of the three websites using evaluation guidelines from the National Library of Medicine tutorial Links to an external site..
Compare and summarize your evaluation of online health information from the three websites
- an example of a website evaluation can be found below.

Lyme Disease Internet Site Evalua3on By: Purpose: • To show where to ﬁnd good and reliable informa3on about Lyme disease on the Web • To show which websites are reliable and the reason why • To examine them according to Na3onal Library of Medicine tutorial on Evalua3ng Internet Health Informa3on Process I searched Google for “Lyme Disease” to pick my sources: 1) hMps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease 2) hMps://www.medicinenet.com/lyme_disease/ar3cle.htm 3) hMps://www.cdc.gov/lyme/ These three are the top 3 websites when searched online, and they will be evaluated 1) hMps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease • Wikipedia is well known and we have used it at one 3me or another • When opened, it looks good, BUT there is a link on the top of the page that says, “edit”. When I clicked on it, all it said I had to do was sign in and then I could edit the informa3on. • When I clicked on the about page it stated, “supported by the Wikimedia Founda3on and based on a model of openly editable content.”. • On the disclaimer page it says in all capitaliza3on, “WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY.” Then, under it states that the informa3on posted is not peer reviewed. Another statement on this page is that the informa3on posted is not professional advice. • Wikipedia is NOT a good source to get good, credible informa3on. • I would not suggest this to anybody as a reliable source for anything. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! 2) hMps://www.medicinenet.com/lyme_disease/ar3cle.htm • The next sight up to bat is one from medicinenet.com • This sight looks professional and adver3sements are clearly stated as such . • It was review last on May 18, 2015 • 2 Medical Doctors wrote this ar3cle with references to the CDC • In “About Us” it says that they are owned and operated by WebMD • No personal informa3on needed, unless you want more help and clearly states how that informa3on will be used! • Peer Reviewed by medical writers • Gives you where you can contact WebMD. • Gives you all of the names of the authors for the site along with their creden3als. • I would recommend others to use this website for informaEon. 3) hMps://www.cdc.gov/lyme/ • Next up, a website that is a .gov. This suggest that it is government owned and operated. • Federally funded • Shows where they got their informa3on • Provided contact informa3on • Reviewed on May 4, 2015, and last updated on June 2, 2015 • Clear mission statement • Qualiﬁed staﬀ and authors • No personal data collected • I ﬁnd that this website is a good source to ﬁnd good factual informaEon. In Conclusion • Anyone searching the Internet for any health informa3on should search with cau3on • Always know how to pick out the bad from the good websites • Just because it is on the Internet does not make it true, so one should do his/her own due diligence in deciphering what is true and what is false Sources • hMps://medlineplus.gov/webeval/webeval.html • hMps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease • hMps://www.medicinenet.com/lyme_disease/ar3cle.htm • hMps://www.cdc.gov/lyme/

Grid View

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Main Posting	45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s). One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Post is cited with two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors.	0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible sources. Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness	10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3.	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3.
First Response	17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Second Response	16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Participation	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100