Write the claim precisely, trace what supports it and separate what was observed from what was inferred. Keep the source’s context, the strength of the comparison and the remaining questions visible beside your conclusion.
Evidence checked October 17, 2026 (America/Denver). Version 1.0. Original-source desk review; no practical testing.
What this guide helps you do
A general evidence-literacy guide using public teaching resources and a qualified health-information example. It assesses no individual study, diagnosis, treatment, product or dispute and performs no experiment. Consequential domain-specific decisions need suitable expertise and current underlying evidence.
Write a bounded claim before searching
Record the exact statement, who made it, when and where it appeared, and what it predicts or asserts. Identify the people, place, period, product version or conditions it concerns. Separate a factual assertion from an opinion, preference, advertisement or proposed action. State what observation would bear on the claim and what decision depends on the answer. A narrow question makes it easier to see whether evidence actually addresses it.
Investigate the publisher beyond its own page
Look for who is responsible, relevant expertise, funding, affiliations and incentives. Digital Inquiry Group’s public lesson introduces lateral reading: leave an unfamiliar page to investigate it through other sources. Its actual lesson materials require a free account and were not reviewed here. Independent source information can help assess context, but a favorable reputation, polished design or official-looking name does not prove every statement. Source: Digital Inquiry Group introduction to lateral reading.
Trace the assertion to the underlying evidence
Follow citations and links to the original document, dataset, observation or study when possible. Record the exact passage and whether you read the whole source or an excerpt. Check that the population, date, conditions and outcome match the claim. Berkeley’s introductory account describes science as testing ideas against evidence and revising explanations as new evidence appears. Treat a missing reference or inaccessible source as an evidence gap rather than filling it with an assumption. Source: Berkeley Understanding Science 101.
Compare methods, observations and explanations
Ask what was measured, how it was selected, what it was compared with and what alternative explanations remain. Distinguish what the source observed from what its author or a later commentator inferred. Look for relevant counterevidence, missing groups, uncertainty and limits on generalizing the result. A repeated assertion may come from the same original source; trace whether the apparent corroboration is independent. Record disagreements precisely rather than counting links. Source: Berkeley Understanding Science 101.
Use domain questions and suitable expertise
MedlinePlus’s health-information guidance asks about the site owner, purpose, funding, references, review, dates and privacy. For health research in the news it also points to participants, study size, duration, type and funding. These questions illustrate the need to inspect how a result was obtained; they do not establish a personal treatment choice or replace appropriate health expertise. For another domain, find the relevant primary evidence and competent reviewer. The general worksheet is an editorial adaptation. Source: MedlinePlus health-information evaluation.
Write a conclusion with its limits and review trigger
State what the inspected evidence supports, what it does not resolve and why your confidence has the level you assign. Distinguish a claim that is contradicted from one that remains unverified. Preserve the dates, locators and reasons behind the conclusion, including changes made after checking. Identify which new observation, source or changed condition would warrant another review. If the evidence is insufficient for the planned decision, narrow the conclusion, seek help or defer it.
A record you can use
| Record | What to write down |
|---|---|
| Claim | Exact words, speaker/source/date, conditions, claim type and intended decision. |
| Publisher context | Responsibility, expertise, funding/incentives and independent source checks. |
| Evidence trace | Original item/study/data, exact locator, inspected scope and fit to the claim. |
| Method and comparison | Observations, sample/selection, comparison, alternatives, independence and uncertainty. |
| Expertise and gaps | Domain-specific questions, missing/inaccessible evidence and reviewer needed. |
| Conclusion | Supported finding, confidence/reasons, unresolved matters, date and review trigger. |
Learning route
- Define: Write the claim and conditions.
- Trace: Find the original evidence.
- Compare: Check methods and alternatives.
- Qualify: Record confidence and open gaps.
Checklist
- The exact claim and intended decision are recorded.
- Publisher identity and incentives have independent context.
- Evidence can be traced to an actual inspected source.
- Observation, inference and alternative explanations are distinct.
- Domain limits and needed expertise are visible.
- The conclusion carries uncertainty and a review trigger.
Resources and their limitations
Digital Inquiry Group introduction to lateral reading
Digital Inquiry Group introduction to lateral reading — Digital Inquiry Group / Civic Online Reasoning
Use. Use the public lesson description as a starting question about who is behind a source and what other credible sources say. Keep the original claim and independent evidence separate.
Access and cost. Public overview; lesson downloads require a free Digital Inquiry Group account. No registration, download or paid service used.
Review and limits. Only the public lesson landing page reviewed. The free teacher and student materials require a DIG account; no account created and no lesson file, video, classroom exercise or learning outcome tested. Lateral reading helps investigate source identity; reputation alone does not prove a particular statement.
Berkeley Understanding Science 101
Berkeley Understanding Science 101 — Understanding Science / University of California, Berkeley
Use. Read the introductory account of testing ideas against evidence and revising explanations, then ask what observations, methods and alternatives bear on the particular claim.
Access and cost. Public HTML reading. Accounts, equipment, subscriptions, services and access to linked material may have separate conditions; none purchased or tested.
Review and limits. Introductory science education, not a review of a particular product, study or scientific dispute. No experimental result, teaching outcome or practical method independently evaluated. The linked PDF and deeper chapters were not reviewed. An evidence-checking worksheet is original editorial synthesis.
Reviewed pages: Understanding Science 101 · What is science?
MedlinePlus health-information evaluation
MedlinePlus health-information evaluation — NIH National Library of Medicine / MedlinePlus
Use. Read the site-evaluation and health-news questions, trace the underlying source and seek suitable health expertise for decisions about personal care.
Access and cost. Public HTML reading. Accounts, equipment, subscriptions, services and access to linked material may have separate conditions; none purchased or tested.
Review and limits. Health-information literacy only; no diagnosis, treatment choice or individual research study assessed. A trusted institution’s name alone does not settle an individual claim. Applying selected questions outside health is an editorial adaptation. Linked tutorials, PDFs and studies were not read or tested.
Historical starting point
The Spring 1969 An Introduction to Scientific Research page discusses experimental planning and analysis and includes an anecdote about an initially overlooked process condition. This provides a historical prompt to ask about methods, hidden differences and alternative explanations. The anecdote and book were not independently tested; historical laboratory or tobacco practices are not instructions. The present evidence worksheet is original modern synthesis. Locator: Whole Earth Catalog — Spring 1969, PDF page 122, printed page 120.
Related guides
- Finding primary sources — browse the Public Library
- Product, service and method evaluation — browse the Public Library
- AI for learning and practical work
Last substantive desk review: October 17, 2026. Sources retain their own dates and geographic limits. Local services and individual products require a fresh check at the time of use. For a correction, retain the page title, source and passage in question.
