Determining the credibility of evidence and resources
In a 2-4 page scholarly paper, describe a quality or safety issue or a chosen diagnosis, explain the criteria for judging the credibility of journal articles and websites, analyse specific resources against those criteria within your chosen scenario, and explain why credible evidence matters in an EBP model.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 13, 2026
Criteria, then applied to your own scenario
Three scenario options are offered and the brief says any is acceptable, so the first decision is which one you can actually source evidence for. The Vila Health simulation, the diagnosis from your previous assessment and a personal practice experience of a sentinel event are all equally acceptable, but they are not equally easy: the personal sentinel event gives the most vivid issue and the least ready- made evidence base, while the diagnosis route lets you continue a literature search you have already begun and whose shape you already know. Whichever you choose, choose it early, because every later section is supposed to sit inside it. The scoring guide language is a hint worth taking literally — the analysis of credibility must be done within the context of your chosen scenario, which means naming actual articles and websites you would use and judging those, not describing credibility in the abstract.
The criteria themselves should be organised rather than listed, and separating journal articles from websites is what the question asks for because the criteria genuinely differ. For journal articles: peer review status, study design and where it sits in the evidence hierarchy, sample and methods, currency against the five- year limit the submission requirements impose, author credentials, conflicts of interest and whether findings have been replicated. For websites: domain and sponsoring organisation, whether authorship and editorial process are disclosed, whether claims are referenced to primary sources, date of last update, and whether the site is selling something. Then the CRAAP or similar framework can organise both without replacing the judgement. The final section asks why credible evidence matters inside an EBP model specifically, so name the model you are using and show where in its steps appraisal sits, rather than arguing generally that good evidence is better than bad evidence.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Describe a quality or safety issue that would benefit from an evidence-based approach.
- 02Distinguish credibility criteria for peer-reviewed articles from those for websites.
- 03Apply appraisal criteria to specific named resources.
- 04Judge relevance as well as credibility within a defined clinical context.
- 05Locate evidence appraisal within the steps of a named EBP model.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A described quality or safety issue, or chosen diagnosis, from one of the three scenarios.
- 02Explained criteria for determining credibility of journal articles and of websites.
- 03An analysis of the credibility and relevance of specific resources in that context.
- 04An explanation of why credible evidence matters within an EBP model.
- 05A 2-4 page paper in current APA style with 3-5 sources no more than five years old.
Issue, criteria, applied analysis, EBP model
The issue and the scenario
One of the three scenarios chosen, with the quality or safety issue described.
Criteria for journal articles
Peer review, design and hierarchy, methods, currency, authorship and replication.
Criteria for websites
Sponsorship, disclosed authorship, referencing, currency and commercial interest.
Applying the criteria
Named resources judged for credibility and for relevance to this issue.
Credible evidence in an EBP model
A named model with appraisal located in its sequence of steps.
Appraisal frameworks and evidence hierarchies
Recommended databases
- CINAHL
- PubMed
- StatPearls via NCBI Bookshelf
- AHRQ Patient Safety Network
- Course library appraisal guides
Search sequence
- 1.Choose one of the three scenarios and define the issue precisely.
- 2.Read on levels of evidence and where each study design sits.
- 3.Read a published appraisal framework for scholarly and web sources.
- 4.Locate three to five resources under five years old on the chosen issue.
- 5.Read a description of one EBP model and note where appraisal occurs in it.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Evidence-Based Medicine
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
The appraisal step within evidence-based practice, which is what the final section has to locate.
- 02
Epidemiology Of Study Design
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
Study designs and their relative strength, the backbone of the journal article criteria.
- 03
Culture of Safety
AHRQ Patient Safety Network · 2024
Framing for the quality or safety issue, particularly if the sentinel event scenario is chosen.
- 04
Evaluating Internet Health Information
MedlinePlus, National Library of Medicine · 2024
Federal guidance on judging health websites, which is exactly the second criteria set.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Describing credibility criteria in general and never applying them to a named resource.
- Giving one undifferentiated criteria list for both articles and websites.
- Switching scenarios between sections so the analysis has no fixed context.
- Citing sources older than five years when the submission requirements forbid it.
- Referring to evidence-based practice without naming a specific EBP model.
- Assessing credibility but never assessing relevance to the issue.
Submission checklist
- One scenario is chosen and used throughout.
- Criteria for journal articles and for websites are given separately.
- Named resources are analysed against those criteria.
- Relevance is assessed alongside credibility.
- A specific EBP model is named and appraisal located within it.
- The paper is 2-4 pages with 3-5 sources under five years old, in APA style.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.

Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.

Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.