Samuel P Halleck

Professor Leslie Drake

Research Technique
20 February 2016
Evaluation of Sources
Article:
Driver, Carolyn. "Case Studies in Childhood Vaccination." Nurse Prescribing 13.3 (2015): 12228. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.
Currency: This information was first published on March 16th 2015. It was revised on August
18th 2015. My topic requires the use of past information as well as current information to know
the effects vaccinations have had and how they are progressing. The links for this academic
journal are fully functional.
Relevance: It does relate to my topic because the information in this article helps inform health
care individuals on the importance vaccinations have on our society. The intended audience is
scholarly health care professionals. The information of this article is not too elementary or too
advanced, it meets the standards that were intended. I have looked at multiple articles and I feel
that this one helps summarize the use of vaccinations sufficiently. I would definitely feel
comfortable citing this in my research paper.
Authority: The author of this article is Carolyn Driver. The source is Nurse Prescribing. Carolyn
Driver has served as a nurse for over 10 years. She is qualified to write about this topic. There is

no contact information. The URL reveals that it is from .edu. I found this article in the Ottawa
Library online database.
Accuracy: This information comes from years of research in the field as well as a lot of different
research articles. This information is supported by different scenario evidence. The information
has been reviewed. I can identify parts of the article from the sources they used. Part of the
article is also easy to know by my own common knowledge. The tone of the paper seems
persuasive to the topic, because the authors attention is to inform of the risks of immunizations.
I could not find any errors throughout the article.
Purpose: The purpose of this information is to inform. The author makes her intentions clear.
The information is fact. The information seems objective as to serve a purpose for our society. I
believe that it is based on personal biases.
I rate this article a 3 out of 5. I believe the information in this article is useful although I feel she
could have gone into more depth with detail.
Article:
Poorolajal, J., et al. "Delayed Vaccination And Related Predictors Among Infants." Iranian
Journal Of Public Health 41.10 (2012): 65-71 7p. CINAHL Complete. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.
Currency: This article was published on October 26th 2012. It was then later revised on July 7th
2015. My topic requires the use of past information as well as current information to know the
effects vaccinations have had and how they progress. The links for this academic journal are
fully functional.

Relevance: This study relates to my topic. The intended audience is our society. The information
within this article is at the appropriate level for my research. I looked at many sources. I feel
obligated to include the information from this article into my paper.
Authority: The authors of this article are Poorolajal, J, Khazaei S, Kousehlou Z, Bathaei S J,
and Zahiri A. The sources of this article comes from the Iranian Journal of Public Health. These
are all professors of the Hamaden University of Medical Sciences. Theyre all qualified to do this
research. There is no contact information listed. The URL is from .edu because I found it on a
library database.
Accuracy: This information comes from years of research in the field as well as a lot of different
research articles. The information has been reviewed. I can identify parts of the article from the
sources they used. This article is of scholarly academic level. The authors tones seem
informatively stern. I could not find any errors throughout the article.
Purpose: The purpose of this journal is to show that the vaccination status is more often
evaluated by up-to-date vaccination coverage rather than timeliness of immunizations. The
authors make their intended points clear. The information within this article is fact. The point of
view in this article seems to have an objective of getting its point across. I dont believe there are
any of these views within the article.
I rate this article to be a 4 out of 5. This is a scholarly article but there are a few points within this
article that do not seem to be completely proven.

Website Article:
Perlstein, David, Dr. "What Are the Vaccine-preventable Diseases? - Childhood Vaccination
Schedule: Facts on Types of Vaccines." MedicineNet. Ed. Melissa Conrad Stoppler.
MedicineNet.com. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.
Currency: The date of which this article was published is not specified. The editor of the article
is Melissa Conrad Stoppler, MD. My topic requires both current and older source work to fight
the debate over how vaccines are advancing today. The links on the webpage are functional.
Relevance: The information within this article gives me a lot of information over my research
topic and provides a lot of useful material that I could potentially add to my paper. It introduces
the idea of the child vaccination schedule. The audience that this is intended for is the general
public. The information in this article is scholarly and easy to understand. I have looked at
multiple web pages and I feel this is one that shared the most viable information. I would feel
very comfortable using the information on this web page in my research paper.
Authority: The author of this article is David Perlstein, MD, MBA, FAAP. Dr. Perlstein received
his Medical Degree from the University of Cincinnati and then completed his internship and
residency in pediatrics at The New York Hospital, Cornell Medical Center in New York City. I
feel that with his education and work background, Dr. Perlstein is more than qualified to create
research over this topic. There is no contact information. The URL serves no purpose, it is from a
.com URL.
Accuracy: The information comes from Dr. Perlsteins own knowledge as well as a source from
Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. The information in this article is supported by
outstanding history evidence. The information has been reviewed by other doctors. I can identify

from personal knowledge that parts of this article are correct. I would like to use this article to do
more research and compare and contrast others thoughts.
Purpose:
The use of this information is to teach our society on the use of vaccinations. The authors
intentions seem perfectly clear. The information is fact. The point of view seems objective. I
cannot see any biases within this article.
I rate this article a 5 out of 5. I feel that the information in this article is very useful and I would
feel completely comfortable using it for my research paper.
Website Article:
Hooker, Edmond, MD. "What Is the Rabies Vaccine, and Who Should Receive It? - Vaccinations
for Adults and Adolescents: Facts on Timing." MedicineNet. Ed. Melissa Conrad Stoppler.
MedicineNet.com. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.
Currency: The date of which this article was written is not specified. The information has been
edited by Melissa Conrad Stoppler, MD. My paper could use the information from this article be
because of the current and older sides to which it holds. The links on this webpage are functional.
Relevance: The information in this article talks about the adult and adolescent vaccine schedule
and when you should get your vaccines, what the risks are, and when you should not receive a
shot. The intended audience is the general public to be kept informed of when they should get
their shots to stay healthy. The information is educated but easy enough to comprehend. I have
looked at many sources and I feel this one is specialized and could serve a good purpose to my
paper. I would be comfortable citing this for my paper.

Authority: The author of this article is Edmond Hooker, MD, DrPH. Dr. Hooker received his BS
degree from Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia. He earned his MD degree from Eastern
Virginia Medical School. The author is qualified to make an article over this information. There
is no contact information provided. The URL does not show a purpose, it comes from the .com
URL.
Accuracy: The information comes from Dr. Hookers personal knowledge as well as
Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases: The Pink Book: Course
Textbook Updated 10th Edition, 2nd Printing (March 2008). The information is supported by
evidence. It has been reviewed by other doctors. I can verify certain aspects of the article with
my own knowledge, as well as the article they cited.
Purpose:
The use of this information is to teach our society on the use of vaccinations. The authors
intentions seem perfectly clear. The information is fact. The point of view seems objective. I
cannot see any biases within this article.
I rate this article a 5 out of 5. I feel that the information in this article is very useful and I would
feel completely comfortable using it for my research paper.
Book:
Sears, Robert W. The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child. New York: Little,
Brown, 2007. Print.

Currency: The date this book was published on October 22nd 2007. The book was republished
on October 26th 2011. My topic requires current information as well as past information to justify
the use of vaccinations. There are no links since this is a book.
Relevance: The information within this book relates to my research topic. The intended audience
is for parents to inform them on the use of vaccinations. It is an appropriate level book. I looked
at a few books, but I thought this one was a good fit because of the authors views on the pros and
cons. I believe I would be comfortable citing this in my research paper.
Authority: Robert W. Sears is a pediatrician from Capistrano Beach, California, noted for his
unorthodox views on childhood vaccination. He is qualified to write over this topic. There is no
contact information listed for the author. This is a book so there is no web address.
Accuracy: The information within this book comes from the authors years of experience in his
field. The book talks about how in more recent years parents are becoming more reluctant to
listen to their doctors about vaccines and to ask for the potential risks of their children. His
proposals have enjoyed celebrity endorsement, but are not supported by medical evidence and
have contributed to dangerous under-vaccination in the national child population. The
information does not seem to have been reviewed. I can verify little information from this by
personal knowledge. The tone of the author seems very biased and strong willed to his point. He
is not open-minded to all of the possibilities. I could not find any spelling, grammar or
typographical errors.
Purpose:
The purpose of this information is to persuade the view of the readers. The author makes his
intentions very clear on how he feels towards the subject. I feel that all three categories of fact,

opinion, and propaganda fit in this book. The objective of this book is clear to sway the opinion
of others to follow the authors. With vaccinations, there are always certain types of biases. I feel
that the biases that fit in with this would have to be religious, cultural, institutional and personal.
I rate this book a 3 out of 5. The book is well written for the intentions it serves. But the author
seems level headed with any other opinions, and with a topic as controversial as this one being
open-minded to different possibilities is a necessity.