Nutrition-related websites are given an overall score based on a 25-point scale that is the sum of scores in six areas: authority, accuracy, objectivity, currency, coverage, and design/format.

A large number of websites have been reviewed and rated. Only sites with an overall score of at least 15 out of 25 are listed on the NIRC website.

 
1. Authority (4 points):

• Is it clear who is responsible for the contents of the page? The source of the page?
   
• Is there a link to a page describing the purpose of the sponsoring organization?
   
• Is there a way of verifying the legitimacy of the page's sponsor? That is, is there a phone number or postal address to contact for more information?
   
• Is it clear who wrote the material and are the author's qualifications for writing on this topic clearly stated? If the material is protected by copyright, is the name of the copyright holder given?

 
2. Accuracy (5 points):

• Are the sources for any factual information clearly listed so they can be verified in another source?
   
• Is the information free of grammatical, spelling, and other typographical errors?
   
• Is it clear who has the ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of the content of the material?
   
• If there are charts and/or graphs containing statistical data, are the charts and/or graphs clearly labeled and easy to read?
   
• How well is the information placed in the context of generally accepted dietary advice?

 
3. Objectivity (4 points):

• Is the information provided as a public service?
   
• Is the information free of advertising? If there is any advertising on the page, is it clearly differentiated from the informational content?
   
• Does the information show a minimum of bias?
   
• Does the website it provide a balanced coverage of nutrition issues (especially those that are complex and multi-faceted)?

 
4. Currency (4 points):

• Are there dates on the page to indicate: a. When the page was written? b. When the page was first placed on the web? c. When the page was last revised or updated?
   
• Are there any other indications that the material is kept current?
   
• If material is presented in graphs and/or charts, is it clearly stated when the data was gathered?
   
• If the information is published in different editions, is it clearly labeled what edition the page is from?

 
5. Coverage (4 points):

• Is there an indication that the page has been completed, and is not still under construction?
   
• If there is a print equivalent to the web page, is there a clear indication of whether the entire work is available on the web or only parts of it? Are there broken links?
   
• If the material is from a work that is out of copyright (as is often the case with a dictionary or thesaurus) has there been an effort to update the material to make it more current?
   
• What is the intrinsic value? How in-depth is the material?

 
6. Design and Format (4 points):

• How quickly does the website load? Is it very slow, slow, alright, or fast?
   
• Can you easily tell who the target audience of the website is? Is the design appropriate for this audience?
   
• How well does the website use color, font, and graphics? Does important text such as titles, table of contents, and links stand out from the rest of the text? Are graphics appropriate to the topic and audience?
   
• How culturally appropriate is the website? Does the website use any words or images that display a particular ethnic, racial, gender, or religious group in a negative light? Are the graphics appropriate for the cultures and socioeconomic background of the target audiences?

Penn State University | Penn State Nutrition Links

This publication is available in alternative media on request. Penn State is committed to affirmative action, equal opportunity, and the diversity of its workforce.

© The Pennsylvania State University. Site last updated October 30, 2004.

How are we doing? Please provide us with feedback about the services provided by NIRC.