Skip to main content
Medicine LibreTexts

1.1: Critical Thinking and Evaluating Sources

  1. Last updated
  2. Save as PDF
  • Page ID
    59109

    • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    Bias has the potential to influence beliefs and decision-making. To help mitigate flaws in thinking there are several resources or methods you can use to process information and evaluate resources. In this text we use the CRAAP method of evaluating information, but there are several other tools that are just as useful.

    The CRAAP Method of Evaluating Sources

    In the age of ‘new media’ and ‘fake news’ it is important to be able to critically evaluate information. If you are unsure of the validity of what you are reading, The CRAAP Method is a simple acronym that will simplify the way you evaluate information.

    clipboard_ece1f7e511da74db1168ac3ea6aa950a5.png

    The CRAAP test is a test to check the reliability of sources across academic disciplines.

    The Hierarchy of Scientific Evidence

    clipboard_efd1f4f420a2b2b4b245cb4c0caf459e2.png

    Evaluating research involves ranking studies based on their methods. Meta-Analysis and systematic reviews sit at the top of the pyramid, followed by randomized control trials and observational studies. Expert opinion and anecdotal experience are ranked at the bottom.

    Key Takeaways

    The hierarchy of evidence pyramid provides an overview of diverse types and levels of scientific research. Systematic reviews sit at the top of the pyramid, followed by randomized control trials and observational studies. Expert opinion and anecdotal experience are ranked at the bottom. If you are unsure of the validity of what you are reading, The CRAAP Method is a simple acronym that will simplify the way you evaluate information.

    References and Sources

    Burns, P. B., Rohrich, R. J., & Chung, K. C. (2011). The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 128(1), 305–310. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e318219c171

    Doosti-Irani, A., Nazemipour, M., & Mansournia, M. A. (2020). What are network meta-analyses (NMAs)? A primer with four tips for clinicians who read NMAs and who perform them (methods matter series). British journal of sports medicine, bjsports-2020-102872. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-102872

    Faltinsen, E. G., Storebø, O. J., Jakobsen, J. C., Boesen, K., Lange, T., & Gluud, C. (2018). Network meta-analysis: the highest level of medical evidence?. BMJ evidence-based medicine, 23(2), 56–59. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2017-110887

    FitzGerald, C., & Hurst, S. (2017). Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review. BMC medical ethics, 18(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8

    Higgins, J. P., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Jüni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., … Sterne, J. A. (2011). The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 343, d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928

    Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

    Kamper, S. J. (2018). Bias: Linking Evidence With Practice. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy, 48(8), 667–668. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2018.0703

    Kamper, S. J. (2018). Asking a Question: Linking Evidence With Practice. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy, 48(7), 596–597. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2018.0702

    Kamper, S. J. (2020). Risk of Bias and Study Quality Assessment: Linking Evidence to Practice. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy, 50(5), 277–279. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2020.0702

    Ma, L. L., Wang, Y. Y., Yang, Z. H., Huang, D., Weng, H., & Zeng, X. T. (2020). Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?. Military Medical Research, 7(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40779-020-00238-8

    Murad, M. H., Asi, N., Alsawas, M., & Alahdab, F. (2016). New evidence pyramid. Evidence-based medicine, 21(4), 125–127. doi:10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401

    Tomlin, G., & Borgetto, B. (2011). Research Pyramid: a new evidence-based practice model for occupational therapy. The American journal of occupational therapy: official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association, 65(2), 189–196. doi:10.5014/ajot.2011.000828

    Weisman, A., Quintner, J., Galbraith, M., & Masharawi, Y. (2020). Why are assumptions passed off as established knowledge?. Medical hypotheses, 140, 109693. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2020.109693

    Woolf, S. H., Grol, R., Hutchinson, A., Eccles, M., & Grimshaw, J. (1999). Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 318(7182), 527–530. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7182.527

    This page titled 1.1: Critical Thinking and Evaluating Sources is shared under a CC BY 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Richard Lebert (eCampus Ontario) via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform; a detailed edit history is available upon request.