Evaluation of Health Information
Evaluation of Health Information
Rubric: Paper–Evaluation of Health Information on the Internet
| Paper: Evaluation of Health Information on the Internet Grading Rubric | ||||
| Points Earned | Exceeds Expectations | Meets Expectations | Does Not Meet Expectation | |
| Introduction— Explanation of Issues | 4 | Each definition and descriptions of the scope, impact, and nursing role related to health literacy are clear, concise, comprehensive including references for each, and fully supported by evidence (4 points) | Definition and descriptions of the scope, impact, and nursing role related to health literacy are clear, concise, and partially supported by evidence; understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions. (3.5 points) | Definition and description of the scope, impact of health literacy and/or nurses’ roles are stated without clarification, description, or clear evidence. (3 points) |
| Description of the health-related Internet resource (website) | 3 | Identification of the URL for the website home page is accurate; selection of website is reasonable; description of the website is clear, concise, and includes relevant factual information (3 points). | Identification of the URL for the website home page is accurate; selection of website is reasonable; description of the website is concise but some relevant information is omitted or unclear. (2.5 points) | Identification of the URL for the website home page is inaccurate or missing; reasons for selection of website is not mentioned; description of the website is unclear or incomplete. (2 points) |
| Evaluation of website | 9 | Evaluation addresses all of the categories and criteria from the NLM tutorial and is supported by specific examples from the website. Critical appraisal of the website is clear, concise, and organized and based on accurate, factual information (9 points). | Evaluation addresses most of the categories and criteria from the NLM tutorial. Support for evaluation (factual examples from the website) is not consistently or clearly provided. Appraisal of website is generally clear and accurate and is supported with some accurate, factual information. (7 points). | Evaluation does not address criteria from 2 or more of the categories in the NLM tutorial. Examples from the website to support the evaluation are not included and/or are not accurate or are based on opinion rather than factual information. (5 points) |
| Summary: Strengths, Limitations, Implications, and Conclusions | 6 | Synthesis of strengths and limitations of the website in relation to the website’s use by patients is based on the evaluation. Potential areas of concern and/or unintended consequences related to using this website for patient education are clearly described. At least 2 specific recommendations (and rationale) for improvement of the website (including evidence) are included (6 points) | Summary of strengths and limitations of the website in relation to use by patients is based on the evaluation. Potential areas of concern and/or unintended consequences related to using this website for patient education are identified. One recommendation for improvement of the website is included. Recommendations were provided without evidence. (4.5 points) | Strengths, limitations and areas of concern/ unintended consequences of website use for patient education are incongruent with the website evaluation. No improvements of the website are recommended. (3 points) |
