Not every source you find is trustworthy or useful. Before incorporating a source into your work, it’s essential to pause and evaluate it carefully. There are many checklist evaluation methods—ABCs, the SIFT method, the 5 Ws, CARS, and the CRAAP Test. All serve the same purpose: guiding you through the process of deciding whether a source is reliable.
These models are helpful starting points, especially for newer researchers, but no checklist can capture the full complexity of evaluating information. Think of them as tools—not guarantees—and use them to build good habits as your judgment grows. Choose one you can remember, and apply it consistently to every potential source.
The CRAAP Test offers a simple checklist for determining the suitability of a potential source:
Currency – Is the information up to date for your topic? Some fields (like medicine or technology) demand recent sources, while others (like history) may rely on older ones.
Relevance – Does the source support points in your outline? Does it add new information or simply repeat what you already have?
Authority – Who created the source, and what makes them credible? Look at the author’s background, education, or professional experience.
Accuracy – Is the information evidence-based? Check for citations, peer review, and whether claims can be confirmed elsewhere.
Purpose/Point of View – Why was the source created? Is it objective, biased, or persuasive? What’s the author’s agenda?
Using the CRAAP Test helps you spot potential problems, but sometimes you can’t answer these questions from the source alone. That’s where lateral reading comes in.
The CRAAP Test is a solid starting point, but the site you’re evaluating isn’t always the best place to verify authority, accuracy, or point of view. Authors and organizations can misrepresent themselves, and sites that look professional may be promoting an agenda.
Lateral reading means stepping outside the source. Open a new tab and search for information about the author, organization, or publication. By reading across multiple sources—not just down the page in front of you—you can see what others are saying and gather outside evidence.
This practice strengthens your evaluation, helps confirm credibility, and gives you a clearer sense of whether a source deserves a place in your research.
These aren’t a checklist to memorize—just questions to help you think like a fact-checker:
Who is behind this source?
Who funds or sponsors the site where you found your source?
What is the mission or stated purpose of the organization?
Is it affiliated with a political group, advocacy organization, company, or individual with a clear agenda?
What do others say about them?
Do authoritative or neutral sources treat this site/organization as reputable?
Have they been involved in controversies, misinformation, or advocacy campaigns?
How do subject-matter experts or established news outlets describe them?
Does the organization rate well (or poorly) on independent media-bias or fact-checking sites?
What can you learn about the author?
What is their background? Are they a journalist, researcher, influencer, activist, or anonymous contributor?
Have they published in credible, peer-reviewed, or well-edited places before?
Do you find interviews, bios, or other work that help establish expertise—or raise questions?
How does outside evidence compare with the claims in the original piece?
Does what you find elsewhere directly contradict the source?
Does the claim appear only on a handful of sites that all cite each other?
Are credible news outlets reporting on (or perhaps more important, not reporting on) what you’re reading?
If it’s a study or statistic, can you trace it back to the original research?
These are fast, practical starting points for students:
Wikipedia — a good place to learn basic background on people, organizations, and controversies. (Don’t cite it; use it.)
Library databases — look up author names in databases to see if they’ve published credible work.
Google searches — combine author/sponsor with words like “controversy,” “funding,” or "criticism.”
Fact-checking sites — such as Snopes, FactCheck.org, or Media Bias/Fact Check to get quick reputational context.
Official websites — to confirm mission statements, leadership, funding, and affiliations.