Skip to Main Content

Module 2: Appraising Evidence

Appraise -- Critically Evaluate your Evidence

How do we Appraise?

After you have acquired your evidence, you must appraise the information that you've discovered. Critically appraising your information will help determine if the information being used is high quality, authoritative, and relevant to the question. 

Start by identifying the type of evidence that you have acquired. Once you know what type of evidence you have on your hands, you can use a checklist (see the different tabs in Evaluating Studies page) to determine the validity of the evidence. The type of study will determine the type of appraisal tool that is needed.

You will also need to think critically about the quality and relevancy of the evidence to your current clinical situation. Use the following questions when critically appraising the evidence you've acquired:

  • Accuracy: Is the information valid and supported by evidence? Is their author's point of view objective and unbiased?
  • Authority: Who created the information? Have they previously written about this topic? Have they been previously cited?
    • Be prepared to ask questions that de-construct the concept of authority
      • What are some indicators of authority? What makes someone an authority on a topic? How does bias privilege some sources over others?
  • Currency: When was the information published?
  • Objectivity: Who is the publisher? Is there a conflict of interest or disclosures? 
  • Quality: Is the information well-organized? Are the main point clearly presented?
  • Relevancy: Is the source of the information popular or scholarly? Is the content primary, secondary, or tertiary? What is the level of evidence?

Consider the information on this list as you review the articles you've retrieved from database searching.  

Title Should be clear, concise, and convey the main concepts, hypotheses, methods, and variables involved in the study. 
Abstract A synopsis that details the paper's purpose or aims, hypotheses, sample, methods, and summary of results/findings. The abstract is one of the most commonly read parts of an article and its usually what determines if a reader is going to pursue reading the entire piece.
Introduction Grounds the reader to the subject of the article and provides background information (problem, evidence from other studies) on why this particular study is important. Includes the aims and hypotheses of the study. You can also occasionally find the framework used to conduct the study here.
Methods Describes how the study was done and should provide enough information for a reader to replicate the study. Should include a description of the sample population and variables, instruments used to measure said variables and their overall reliability and validity, materials used, the type of study design, and the procedures and statistical tests used. This section contains critical information for determining the validity and replicability of the study. 
Results Provides relevant statistical results including those that may not support the hypotheses. Section also contains tables and graphs that are meant to summarize the study's findings.
Discussion Analyze the results in relation to the research question(s) and the study's hypotheses. If the hypotheses were not supported, the section should offer possible explanations for the results. Should also discuss limitations of the study and recommendations for the future.
References Listed and formatted in accepted citation style. All references featured in the body of the article should be included in this reference list.

Adapted from: UVA Health, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library.