Website Evaluation for Quality of Information

Be sure to review the rubric for this assignment prior to starting your work so that you include all necessary information to achieve the grade you desire. You can choose a list, paragraph, or table format for your information. This must be submitted as a document using Microsoft Word in order for it to be graded.
Guidelines:
1. Select a healthcare topic to be reviewed using information found on a website
2. Choose a website you feel would contain quality information about your selected topic
3. Choose another website with poor quality information about the topic (other than Wikipedia)
4. Include the name of each website evaluated and a link to the site

Use the following criteria found in your textbook in Chapter 4 to evaluate the websites:
? Credentials of source
? Ability to validate information
? Accuracy of information
? Comprehensiveness of information
? Date of issue or revision
? Bias or sponsorship
? Ease of navigation
? Intended purpose and audience
? Site accreditation

Source Credentials : Are they listed? Are they reputable? Does the expertise qualify them to speak authoritatively on the subject?
Ability to validate information: Are original sources noted or can they be contacted?
Accuracy: is the information provided to determine whether information is factual?
Comprehensive: Does the site provide a well-balanced view or just a narrow focus
Currency: are dates for posting, review, and revision obvious?
Sponsorship or bias? Does the site sell products or have reason to provide a balanced view?
Easy to use
Intended purpose and audience ? Site should indicate the intended audience and use appropriate terminology
Site Accreditation

Name: Website Evaluation
Description: This rubric is to be used when comparing websites for quality

? Grid View
? List View
Show Descriptions Show Feedback
Basic Information–
Levels of Achievement:
Novice 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Omits both the topic and links to the websites, does not identify quality versus poor website
Competent 1 (2%) – 2 (4%)
Omits the topic or identifying quality versus poor websites, or website link
Proficient 3 (6%) – 3 (6%)
Clearly identifies the topic, identifies quality website with link and poor quality website with link

Credentials of Source–
Levels of Achievement:
Novice 0 (0%) – 1 (2%)
Source credentials are described without reflection on the criteria
Competent 2 (4%) – 5 (10%)
Source credentials are described using two to three criteria with little to no understanding of the importance of the criteria demonstrated
Proficient 6 (12%) – 8 (16%)
Source credentials are described using all three criteria with good understanding of the importance of the criteria demonstrated

Ability to validate–
Levels of Achievement:
Novice 0 (0%) – 1 (2%)
Little to no discussion of criteria is provided or there is minimal discussion that reflects little understanding of how criteria establish validity
Competent 2 (4%) – 4 (8%)
Only one of the criteria is discussed and discussion reflects little to no understanding of how criteria establish validity
Proficient 5 (10%) – 6 (12%)
Discussion of both criteria is provided reflecting good understanding of how they establish validity

Accuracy of Information–
Levels of Achievement:
Novice 0 (0%) – 1 (2%)
Little to no discussion of criteria is provided or there is minimal discussion that reflects little understanding of how criteria establish accuracy
Competent 2 (4%) – 4 (8%)
Only one of the criteria is discussed and discussion reflects little to no understanding of how criteria establish accuracy
Proficient 5 (10%) – 6 (12%)
Discussion of both criteria is provided reflecting good understanding of how they establish accuracy

Comprehensiveness of information–
Levels of Achievement:
Novice 0 (0%) – 1 (2%)
Little to no discussion of criteria is provided or there is minimal discussion that reflects little understanding of how criteria establish comprehensiveness
Competent 2 (4%) – 4 (8%)
Only one of the criteria is discussed and discussion reflects little to no understanding of how criteria establish comprehensiveness
Proficient 5 (10%) – 6 (12%)
Discussion of both criteria is provided reflecting good understanding of how they establish comprehensiveness

Date of Issue–
Levels of Achievement:
Novice 0 (0%) – 1 (2%)
Date of issue or revision is not identified when present and/or not noted as unavailable when absent
Competent 2 (4%) – 3 (6%)
Date of issue or revision is identified incorrectly and/or not noted as unavailable when absent
Proficient 4 (8%) – 5 (10%)
Date of issue or revision is identified correctly when present and/or identified as unavailable when absent

Bias/Sponsorship–
Levels of Achievement:
Novice 0 (0%) – 1 (2%)
Little to no discussion of criteria is provided or there is minimal discussion that reflects little understanding of how criteria demonstrate the presence/absence of bias
Competent 2 (4%) – 3 (6%)
Only one of the criteria is discussed and discussion reflects little to no understanding of how criteria demonstrate the presence/absence of bias
Proficient 4 (8%) – 5 (10%)
Discussion of several criteria is provided reflecting good understanding of how they demonstrate the presence/absence of bias

Navigation–
Levels of Achievement:
Novice 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Little to discussion of the ease of navigation is provided or discussion does not demonstrate understanding of components that facilitate navigation
Competent 1 (2%) – 2 (4%)
Ease of navigation is stated but discussion reflects little to no understanding of components that facilitate navigation
Proficient 3 (6%) – 3 (6%)
Ease of navigation is stated with discussion reflecting good understanding of some of the components that facilitate navigation

Audience and Purpose–
Levels of Achievement:
Novice 0 (0%) – 1 (2%)
Little to no discussion of content items is provided and/or reflects little to no understanding of the criteria that indicate item consideration within site content
Competent 2 (4%) – 3 (6%)
Discussion of both content items is provided but reflects little to no understanding of the criteria that indicate item consideration within site content
Proficient 4 (8%) – 5 (10%)
Discussion of both content items is provided and demonstrates good understanding of the two criteria that indicate item consideration within site content

Accreditation–
Levels of Achievement:
Novice 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Presence/absence of accreditation not discussed
Competent 1 (2%) – 2 (4%)
Presence/absence of accreditation noted incorrectly or not from a nationally recognized accrediting organzation
Proficient 3 (6%) – 3 (6%)
Presence/absence of accreditation from a nationally recognized accrediting organization noted correctly
Name:Website Evaluation
Description:This rubric is to be used when comparing websites for quality

References: Minimum of seven scholarly references

find the cost of your paper