Alkejek, Montiel, and Rangel 1

Sarah Alkejek
Athena Montiel
Vanessa Rangel

Quiz 2: Food Insecurity Group

Part 1: Professional Source Evaluation

The overall quality of the document is excellent because the researchers used a current
health interview survey and food environment assessment. The researchers had a clear
hypothesis and methodology. They also used reasonable measures and were actually associated
to smoking and food distress. Moreover, Hosler and Michaels acknowledged that further studies
need to be done in order to actually directly associate smoking with food distress.

The 3-4 evaluation categories that the group chose were authorship, bias, currency, and
relevance. Authorship is important because it gives credit to the authors who made contributions
to the article and presents their role in taking responsibility and being accountable for what is
published. Bias is also considered an important category because identifying bias is essential to
quality research. The content of the article was based upon facts and research rather than
opinions and examined issues using multiple perspectives. Currency is another important factor
only when the topic requires availability for recent information. The references from the article
were scholarly and were mostly recent; however, one reference was more than ten years old, but
was probably used due to its historical value. Last but not least, it is necessary to determine
relevance when evaluating the article. The information discussed in the article has to support the
topic directly, so it can be useful for the audience.

The overall quality of the document is rated as excellent from a scale of excellent-poor
based on the categories and descriptions displayed in the professional source evaluation matrix.
As a group, we evaluated the document by providing scores that reflected our judgment for each
category. The majority of the categories had an excellent score, including authorship, publisher,
writing, bias, and relevance.

There is not a difference between our rankings. This is probably due to the fact that when
we read the article we were actually looking at the different important components that help
create a good article, such as hypothesis, methods, statistics, limitations, and so on. Basically, we
applied the skills we learned during journal club instinctively. In question five, we looked at our
scores and noticed that we evaluated the articles by these items unknowingly before. For
example, bias was a category we chose to score and that is actually goes under limitations, which
we looked at previously. The same goes for currency and relevance. We probably instinctively
looked at these because in our journal club, we had read some articles that used old data and had
 Alkejek, Montiel, and Rangel 2

little to no relevancy. However, the only new item was authorship and even then, it still had a
good score. Therefore, our scores are the same due to this.

Professional Source Evaluation Matrix

Categories and descriptions Scor
es

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

Authorshi All Some It is No 3

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

Publisher Publisher Publisher is Publisher Publisher is 3

is reputable is known unknown,
reputable, commercially but is not a i.e., a vanity
i.e. a well- but perhaps respected or self-
known not academic publisher.
academic academically or
press or is such as commercia
publishing publishing a l press.
an trade journal.
academic
journal.
 Alkejek, Montiel, and Rangel 3

Currency The The The There are no 2

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

Writing Written Written for Written for Written for 3

for adult lay adult lay children or
profession audience with audience has no
al and depth. and has depth.
academic minimal
audience. depth.

Bias Issues are Issues are Arguments The source 3

examined examined but about the relies mostly
fairly mostly from issue(s) are upon
using one side. The persuasive opinions
multiple source is but not rather than
perspectiv persuasive well evidence or
es and the and well supported. research.
writing is researched. The
based language
upon facts may
and express a
research clear
rather than preference
opinions. for one
side of an
issue.
 Alkejek, Montiel, and Rangel 4

Relevance The The The The 3

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

Part 2: Lay Audience Source Evaluation

Sarah Alkejek
Athena Montiel
Vanessa Rangel
Categories and descriptions Scores

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

Autho All Some It is difficult No

rship informatio information to identify inform
n on on authors any ation
authors names, information on
names, credentials, about authors
credentials and authors but
, and affiliations some names,
affiliations are clearly information credent
are clearly stated and is provided. ials,
stated and can be and
can be identified. affiliati
identified. ons
provide
d.
 Alkejek, Montiel, and Rangel 5

Publis Publisher Publisher is Publisher is Publish

her is reputable known but er is
reputable, academicall is not a unkno
i.e. a well- y but respected wn, i.e.,
known perhaps not for lay a self-
press for for lay audience publish
lay audience communicat er or
audience communicat ion. predat
communic ion. ory.
ation.

Curre The The The There

ncy references references references are no
are are are mostly referen
scholarly scholarly scholarly ces or
and recent and 5-10 but are referen
(within years old more than ces are
past 3-5 but has 10 years old non
years) and historical and has scholar
are valueis little ly.
relevant to considered a historical
the topic classic value or
or subject. article in the relevance to
field or on the topic or
the subject subject.
material.

Writin Written in Written in Written for Writte 2

g depth for some depth lay audience n for
adult lay for adult lay but lacks profess
audience audience depth. ional or
and uses and uses academ
minimal minimal ic
scientific scientific audien
language language (or ces or
(or such such for
language language is childre
is mostly n.
explained). explained).
 Alkejek, Montiel, and Rangel 6

Bias Issues are Issues are Arguments The 2

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

Releva The The The The 3

nce informatio information information inform
n directly may not has some ation
supports directly relation to has
the topic support the the topic but little to
and is very topic but is is not very no
useful. useful for useful. relatio
background nship
information. to the
topic
and is
not
useful.

The article The Return of American Hunger was assessed from a health professional
perspective as medium quality. The articles message that average Americans are struggling with
food insecurity and that the government isnt addressing the issue or creating policies to help the
struggling American families is clear and easy to understand. Additionally, we are able to
recognize bias, limitations of policies in order to serve a larger population, and the process of
creating new policies or programs that target food insecure populations. The degree of health
literacy we have as health professionals helps us analyze the article and its components.
 Alkejek, Montiel, and Rangel 7

The three evaluation categories we chose to be most important and relevant to the article
are writing, bias, and relevance. Writing is the most important evaluation category in regards to a
lay article because the writing style and language used will determine to what degree the lay
audience understands the information presented and will likely impact whether the person will
read the whole article. Bias is an important evaluation factor because a lay article is usually
familiarizing or briefing a topic to the general audience so introducing bias limits the information
the general population receives. Relevance of information is an important evaluation category
because the general population will likely read about information that is relevant or a concern to
them or their community.

Based on the writing, bias introduced, and relevance of the information presented the
article is low-medium quality for a lay individual. The article presents information that is very
relevant to the average American and they would likely be able to read. However, some of the
writing does include words or phrases like post-recession, wage-growth, reimposition, and
excise that the average American may not understand. Additionally, the author presents a
problem of food insecurity with no real solution which an average American might find useful.
In terms of bias, the author details the issue of food insecurity and how the government is not
adequately serving its people which may further impact the general population's view on
government.

The rankings of the article were identified relatively similar as medium and low-medium
quality. When reading an article perspective and prior knowledge play a critical role in how we
analyze and critique the article. From a lay individuals perspective, the article may raise
awareness however the article needs to be well written so it is easy for an average person to
understand and refrain from introducing bias. Overall it is important to keep your target audience
in mind when writing an article and the different factors that may affect how the reader perceives
the information.

The evaluation categories are completely different for the lay article and professional
source because they are intended for two different populations and will be critiqued and analyzed
based on various different factors. While a health professional may have prior knowledge and the
skill to conduct further research an average person may consider one article a good source of
information.