Website Evaluation TutorialA Comparison of Executive Function Skills Websites

Lori SandEDTL 6360Module 3

This presentation will demonstrate the process of evaluating websites for credibility using two websites containing information about Executive Function Skills.

Website #1 is a page from a site called WebMD http://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/executive-function

Website #2 is page from a site called LD Onlinehttp://www.ldonline.org/article/29122/

This website evaluation process will use four areas for determining the reliability of these webpages: Authority, Accuracy, Currency, and Objectivity.

Authority Is there an author? Are they qualified? Who is the sponsor?

Website #1 Website #2

This page does not list a specific author for its content. There is a name listed as a "reviewer" with an active link to a biography of this individual. The biography is also part of the WebMD site. When "googled", this individual's credentials can be verified as accurate.

When WebMD is "googled" a variety of perceptions arise, with one recurring theme that WebMD is a commercial, profit driven organization.

Sponsors for WebMD are companies paying for advertising.

The page lists two authors with a date as a by-line. At the end of the "article," there is a reference to the authors book and it's publishing house. Both authors can be "googled" for credentials and information.

The owner for this website is non-profit PBS company listed as WETA Learning Media. It hosts several other education related websites.

The sponsors listed (as advertising) are limited and less obtrusive.

Accuracy Is the information reliable? Error free? Is there someone who verifies the information?

Website #1 Website #2

The page has a link to a list of references for the information provided. Including an About page listing staff and editors.

The page within the website does list a reviewer who can be googled for credentials.

The page is professionally written and contains no spelling or grammar errors.

The page has links to other resources.

The website itself has a comprehensive page outlining staff, mission, funders and awards.

The page is professionally written and contains no spelling or grammar errors.

Currency Is the page current? The links current? Dates present to prove this?

Website #1 Website #2

The page lists a date for when it was last reviewed by the reviewer. It does not list a date for when it was authored or added to the website.

Using a WHOIS search, only the ownership of the entire website is available, not the information for individual articles.

All of the resource links work but they are on a much broader range of topics.

The specific Executive Functioning Skills page has a date regarding publication. There is not a recent update record.

Using a WHOIS search, there is a date for the last time the database for the website was updated.

This webpage contains six links with topics /subtopics specifically for Executive Functioning Skills such as behavior management and homework.

Objectivity Is the information minimally biased? Advertisement on the page? Does page design sway reader’s opinion?

Website #1 Website #2

While the body of the webpage does not appear to be presented in a biased manner, promoting a theory or a product, the surrounding information on the webpage does. Most of the advertising and the "resource" links are related to ADD and ADHD issues and products. At first glance or by association, it appears that Executive Functioning Skills are related only to ADD and ADHD.

The information presented in the body of this article appears to be presented in an unbiased manner. While there are advertisements for related products, they are very few. The fact that the authors wrote a book on the subject, could point to a bias in that the information is solely from their point of view. The resources listed (and linked) are from several sources. The website that the page is on is dedicated to Learning Disabilities and one could surmise that Executive Functioning Skills are unique to Learning Disabilities until the article is fully read.

Conclusion of ReliabilityBoth of the websites reviewed for credibility have value. WebMD, being a commercial site, had a broad overview but less relevant resources for expanding information. The LD Online website had more detailed information regarding Executive Functioning Skills and the additional resources provided were specific to the subject.

I feel as though both sites were trustworthy. The information presented on both pages was consistent. I prefer the LD Online page because there is less advertising clutter and more relevant extensions of the subject in the form of clickable links.

For student use, explaining that sites like WebMD are a good starting point for researching information, but that additional resources will be needed depending on the reason for the search.

CreditsCRITICAL EVALUATION OF A WEB SITE: WEB SITES FOR USE BY EDUCATORShttp://www.schrockguide.net/critical-evaluation.html

Evaluation Criteriahttp://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/evalcrit.html

Website Evaluation Tutorialhttp://www.widener.edu/about/campus_resources/wolfgram_library/evaluate/default.aspx

WHOIS Domain Searchhttp://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jsp