PSYC FPX 3002 Assessment 2 CRAAP Test and Library Worksheet
PSYC FPX 3002 Assessment 2 CRAAP Test and Library Worksheet
Name
Capella University
PSYC FPX 3002 Developing a Psychology Perspective
Prof. Name
Date
PSYC FPX 3002 Assessment 2: CRAAP Test and Library Worksheet
PSYC FPX 3002 Assessment 2 focuses on evaluating the credibility of online information and locating a scholarly source through the Capella Library. In this assessment, the CRAAP Test is applied to Bryan E. Robinson’s 10 Common Myths About Therapy, while a scholarly commentary by Arch G. Mainous is examined for its publication details, purpose, and usefulness. The CRAAP evaluation produced a score of 41 out of 50, placing the Psychology Today article in the Good category. However, its limitations mean it is better suited for background information than as a primary scholarly source.
CRAAP Test: Evaluating “10 Common Myths About Therapy”
The CRAAP Test provides a structured way to determine whether an online source is suitable for academic research. The five evaluation criteria are Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose. For this assessment, the selected source is Bryan E. Robinson’s article, 10 Common Myths About Therapy, published by Psychology Today.
Web page evaluated:
Robinson, B. E. (2020). 10 common myths about therapy. Psychology Today.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-right-mindset/202005/10-common-myths-about-therapy
The evaluation resulted in a total score of 41/50, which falls within the Good range under the CRAAP Test scoring guidelines.
Currency
Currency assesses whether the information is sufficiently recent and whether the source has been maintained or updated. Robinson’s article was originally published in 2020, making it relatively recent for general information about psychotherapy. The webpage also indicates that it was updated in 2022, suggesting that the content was maintained after its original publication.
The links associated with the article were functional when the source was reviewed. Although newer research may be available, the article remains useful for understanding general misconceptions about therapy.
Based on its publication date and evidence of subsequent maintenance, the source received a Currency score of 10/10.
Relevance
Relevance considers whether a source directly addresses the topic being researched and whether its content is appropriate for the intended audience. Robinson’s article is relevant because it specifically discusses misconceptions and myths related to therapy and psychotherapy.
The article uses language that is accessible to a general audience while still providing useful background information. Its discussion of several common misconceptions makes it helpful for developing an initial understanding of how therapy is perceived and practiced.
The source was compared with other online information before being selected. Its content aligns with the topic, although peer-reviewed literature would provide stronger evidence for academic research.
The article received a Relevance score of 9/10.
Authority
Authority evaluates the qualifications of the author and the credibility of the organization or publication responsible for the source. The article was written by Bryan E. Robinson, Ph.D., whose professional background includes psychotherapy and related mental health experience. His biography and professional publications provide evidence of experience in the subject area.
The article was published by Psychology Today, an established publication that provides psychology-related information to the public. However, Psychology Today articles are generally written for a broad audience and should not automatically be treated as peer-reviewed scholarly research.
Because the author has relevant professional experience but the publication is not a peer-reviewed academic journal, the source received an Authority score of 8/10.
Accuracy
Accuracy examines whether information is presented correctly, supported by appropriate evidence, and free from significant errors. Robinson’s article is clearly written and does not appear to contain major spelling, grammar, or typographical problems.
A limitation is that the article does not provide extensive scholarly documentation for every claim. It is not a systematic review or original research study. Some of the examples and comparisons reflect professional interpretation and experience rather than conclusions supported by extensive empirical evidence.
For academic purposes, readers should therefore distinguish between professional commentary and findings supported by peer-reviewed research.
The source received an Accuracy score of 7/10.
Purpose
Purpose examines the reason a source was created and whether its primary goal is to inform, persuade, entertain, or promote a product or service. Robinson’s article primarily aims to educate readers about common misconceptions surrounding therapy.
The article provides general information and professional observations about psychotherapy. At the same time, some statements are based on the author’s professional perspective rather than extensive research evidence. Therefore, the article is best viewed as educational or professional commentary rather than a research-based academic source.
Because the author’s perspective may influence how some topics are presented, the information should be considered alongside peer-reviewed research.
The source received a Purpose score of 7/10.
CRAAP Test Score
The CRAAP Test scoring criteria used for this evaluation are:
| Score | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| 45–50 | Excellent |
| 40–44 | Good |
| 35–39 | Average |
| 30–34 | Borderline acceptable |
| Below 30 | Not an acceptable source |
| CRAAP Category | Score |
|---|---|
| Currency | 10/10 |
| Relevance | 9/10 |
| Authority | 8/10 |
| Accuracy | 7/10 |
| Purpose | 7/10 |
| Total | 41/50 |
A total of 41/50 places Robinson’s article in the Good category. The source is useful for general background information about therapy and common misconceptions. However, its limited scholarly documentation means that it should be supplemented with peer-reviewed research when used for academic assignments.
Library Worksheet: Locating and Evaluating a Scholarly Article
The second part of the PSYC FPX 3002 Assessment 2 worksheet involves locating and evaluating a scholarly source through the Capella Library and its Summon search system. The selected article was written by Arch G. Mainous and published in 2018. It discusses the importance of communicating scientific findings effectively in an environment where misinformation and science denial can interfere with public understanding of research.
What Is the Full Title of the Article?
The complete title is “Perspectives in Primary Care: Disseminating Scientific Findings in an Era of Fake News and Science Denial.”
The title reflects the article’s focus on communicating scientific information to the public and addressing challenges created by misinformation.
What Journal Published the Article?
The article was published in The Annals of Family Medicine, a professional medical journal focused on family medicine, primary care, and healthcare research.
What Volume and Issue Contains the Article?
The article appears in Volume 16, Issue 6 of The Annals of Family Medicine.
What Pages Contain the Article?
The article appears on pages 490–491.
What Is the DOI?
The article’s DOI is:
https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2311
The article is also available through PubMed Central:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6231922
Is the Article a Research Study or Commentary?
The Mainous article is an editorial/commentary rather than an original research study. This distinction is important when evaluating scholarly sources. A research study generally presents original data, methods, analysis, and findings, whereas an editorial or commentary provides professional discussion, interpretation, or perspective on an issue.
Although the article is not an original research study, it is still useful for understanding the challenges associated with communicating scientific evidence.
What Is the Primary Purpose of the Mainous Article?
Mainous (2018) highlights the importance of communicating scientific and medical findings clearly at a time when misinformation can spread rapidly. Healthcare professionals, researchers, and members of the public may encounter inaccurate or misleading information, making effective communication particularly important.
The article emphasizes that scientific findings should be communicated in ways that people outside specialized medical and scientific communities can understand. Clear communication can help patients, families, healthcare professionals, and other readers better distinguish evidence-based information from unsupported claims.
The article therefore emphasizes the responsibility of researchers and healthcare professionals to communicate scientific information accurately, clearly, and responsibly.
What Does Mainous Recommend for Communicating Future Research?
Mainous (2018) emphasizes making scientific findings understandable to broader audiences. Researchers should avoid relying exclusively on highly technical terminology and should explain important findings and implications in language that non-specialists can understand.
Effective scientific communication can involve:
-
Clearly explaining the main findings of research.
-
Using language that is accessible to non-specialists.
-
Identifying the most important conclusions.
-
Limiting unnecessary technical terminology.
-
Presenting evidence accurately and responsibly.
-
Explaining why the findings matter to patients and the public.
These practices can make research easier to understand and can help reduce confusion when scientific information is shared with broader audiences.
What Is the APA In-Text Citation?
The APA in-text citation for the Mainous article is:
(Mainous, 2018)
When the author’s name is included directly in the sentence, the citation can be written as:
Mainous (2018) explains that scientific findings should be communicated clearly to broader audiences.
What Is the APA Reference?
The APA 7th edition reference is:
Mainous, A. G. (2018). Perspectives in primary care: Disseminating scientific findings in an era of fake news and science denial. The Annals of Family Medicine, 16(6), 490–491. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2311
Time Management Reflection
Completing this exercise required more time than originally anticipated. A substantial amount of time was spent reviewing the assignment instructions, examining the required resources, and rereading the source material to ensure that the information was understood correctly.
Additional time was needed to locate and evaluate a scholarly article through the Capella Library. The library resources and APA formatting tools were helpful during the process, particularly when verifying publication information and citation details.
For future assignments, more time should be allocated to locating credible sources, reading required materials, evaluating source quality, and reviewing APA formatting. Breaking an assignment into smaller tasks can also make the research and writing process more manageable. Setting a specific amount of time for each stage can help ensure that all requirements are completed before the submission deadline.
FAQs About PSYC FPX 3002 Assessment 2
What is the CRAAP Test in PSYC FPX 3002 Assessment 2?
The CRAAP Test is a source-evaluation method that examines Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose. It helps students determine whether information is credible and appropriate for academic research.
What score did the “10 Common Myths About Therapy” article receive?
The article received a total score of 41 out of 50. Under the scoring criteria used in this assessment, 41 falls within the Good category.
Is the Psychology Today article a scholarly source?
The article is useful for general background information, but it should not be treated as equivalent to a peer-reviewed research article. For academic work, it is better to use it alongside scholarly and peer-reviewed sources.
Who wrote “Perspectives in Primary Care: Disseminating Scientific Findings in an Era of Fake News and Science Denial”?
The article was written by Arch G. Mainous and published in 2018 in The Annals of Family Medicine.
Is the Mainous article a research study?
No. The article is an editorial/commentary rather than an original research study. It discusses the importance of communicating scientific findings clearly in the context of misinformation and science denial.
What is the DOI for the Mainous article?
The DOI is https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2311.
Why is evaluating sources important in psychology?
Evaluating sources helps students distinguish credible, evidence-based information from sources that may be outdated, inaccurate, biased, or unsupported. Using reliable sources is particularly important in psychology because academic and professional decisions should be based on accurate evidence.
References
Mainous, A. G. (2018). Perspectives in primary care: Disseminating scientific findings in an era of fake news and science denial. The Annals of Family Medicine, 16(6), 490–491. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2311
Meriam Library, California State University, Chico. (n.d.). CRAAP test. https://library.csuchico.edu/sites/default/files/craap-test.pdf
PSYC FPX 3002 Assessment 2 CRAAP Test and Library Worksheet
Robinson, B. E. (2020). 10 common myths about therapy. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-right-mindset/202005/10-common-myths-about-therapy