PSYC FPX 3002 Assessment 2 CRAAP Test and Library Worksheet

PSYC FPX 3002 Assessment 2 CRAAP Test and Library Worksheet

Student Name

Capella University

PSYC FPX 3002 Developing a Psychology Perspective

Prof. Name:

Date

CRAAP Test and Library Worksheet

CRAAP Test Directions: Visit the provided resource, select a topic related to one of the articles listed, and complete the CRAAP Test Worksheet below by answering the questions.

Resource: https://spark.adobe.com/page/3JGhN5NQgZB6N/

Use the following questions to evaluate the source of information. After answering the questions, score each category from 1-10 (1 = unreliable, 10 = excellent). Add up the score to determine whether you should use that source for your coursework.

Aten, J. D. (2020, May 11). What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger? or does it? Psychology Today. Retrieved April 9, 2023, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hope-resilience/202005/what-doesn-t-kill-us-makes-us-stronger-or-does-it

Currency: The timeliness of the information. Currency Score

1. Is the information current enough (in psychology, usually within 5 years)? – Yes
2. Has the information or website been revised or updated in the past 6 months? – No
3. Are the links functional? – Yes
   Score: 7

Relevance: The importance of the information for your needs. Relevance Score

1. Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question? – Yes
2. Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e., not too elementary or too advanced for your needs)? – Yes
3. Have you looked at a variety of sources before choosing this one? – Yes, I reviewed 4 of the 10 articles and chose this one.
   Score: 9

Authority: The source of the information. Authority Score

1. Can you identify the author or publisher of the information? – Yes
2. Can you verify the author or publisher’s credentials as a respected expert on the topic? – Yes
3. Does the URL help determine the source? (.edu; .com; .gov; .org) – Yes
   Score: 10

Accuracy: The reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content. Accuracy Score

1. Did the author support his/her statements with credible evidence and provide links to verifiable sources? – Yes
2. Is the information free of spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors? – Yes
3. Does the language or tone seem unbiased and free of emotion? – Mostly. The interviewee appears to be promoting religious practices, such as prayer, connecting with God, and participating in a “faith community.” However, evidence is provided for the benefits of these practices.
   Score: 7

Purpose: The reason the information exists. Purpose Score

1. Is the purpose to inform? (And not to sell, entertain, or persuade) – Seemingly, yes.
2. Is the information factual? (And not opinion or propaganda) – The evidence supports statements that appear opinionated, so I would say yes. However, one statement stands out: “Trying to grow spiritually will probably help you grow psychologically too – and vice versa.” The use of “probably” suggests this is not a fact, in my view.
3. Is the source free of ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases? – Unclear. As mentioned earlier, the interviewee seems to be advocating religion for psychological health improvement.
   Score: 5

Scoring:

• 45-50: Excellent
• 40-44: Good
• 35-39: Average
• 30-34: Borderline Acceptable (Below 30: Not an acceptable source)

Total Score: 35

Library Worksheet Directions: Locate the article below in the Capella Library using Summon. Use the Database Guide Summon: The Basics to assist in your search for this article.

Dr. Arch Mainous published an article in 2018 about primary care physicians sharing scientific findings (keyword: research) in an era of fake news.

After locating and reading the article, answer the following questions:

• What is the full title of the article Dr. Mainous published in 2018?

• Perspectives in Primary Care: Disseminating Scientific Findings in an Era of Fake News and Science Denial

• What is the name of the professional journal in which this article appears?

• Annals of Family Medicine

• What volume and issue of the journal contains this article?

• Volume 16, Issue 6

• What pages from that journal contain this article?

• Pages 490-491

• What is the DOI of this article?

• 10.1370/afm.2311

• Is this a scientific research article or an editorial/commentary about research? [ ] scientific research article
  [x] editorial/commentary

• Briefly summarize in a paragraph of your own words the primary purpose of the Mainous article.

PSYC FPX 3002 Assessment 2 CRAAP Test and Library Worksheet

• The primary purpose of the article is to inform medical professionals, particularly those involved in research, about the significance of sharing their findings with the general public, rather than limiting dissemination to other scientists. The author emphasizes the use of a “pitch” to effectively communicate information in a brief and easily understandable manner to the public. Dr. Mainous highlights the importance of health literacy among the general population to ensure they receive the best possible care.

• Summarize in a paragraph of your own words what Mainous recommends primary care researchers do when publishing future scientific studies to overcome science denial and claims of “fake news.”

• Dr. Mainous advises researchers to collaborate with a journal or university media liaison to create a concise and clear message that is easily understood by the general public. He stresses that these media professionals are not medical researchers, making it beneficial to refine the “pitch” to ensure clarity and resonance. Additionally, he underscores the importance of being available for media interactions to further disseminate the findings.

• What is the in-text citation for this journal article using APA style?

• (Mainous, 2018)

• What is the reference for this journal article using APA style?

• Mainous A. G., 3rd (2018). Perspectives in Primary Care: Disseminating Scientific Findings in an Era of Fake News and Science Denial. Annals of Family Medicine, 16(6), 490–491. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2311

• How much time did it take you to complete this exercise and worksheet? Select one answer. [ ] About what I planned or expected
  [x] More time than I planned or expected
  [ ] Less time than I planned or expected

• If this took more or less time than expected, what changes do you intend to make in your future time management planning? Be specific.

• This exercise took longer than expected, starting with finding the article. I briefly referenced both the ‘Database Guide: Summon’ and the ‘APA Style and Formatting Module’ to complete this worksheet. Locating the article was more challenging than anticipated; as a result, I read through the entire database guide to assist in finding the article. In the future, I will utilize the tools provided to me before beginning the assignment. This approach will likely lead to a better understanding of the material and improve my overall time management.

References

Aten, J. D. (2020, May 11). What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger? or does it? Psychology Today. Retrieved April 9, 2023, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hope-resilience/202005/what-doesn-t-kill-us-makes-us-stronger-or-does-it

Mainous A. G., 3rd (2018). Perspectives in Primary Care: Disseminating Scientific Findings in an Era of Fake News and Science Denial. Annals of Family Medicine, 16(6), 490–491. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2311