Critical reading means engaging with a text rather than simply accepting it. You examine not just what an author claims – the position they are arguing for – but how well their evidence supports it. It means assessing both the strengths and limitations of a source, not simply finding fault with it.
Jump to:
Essential guidance
How to read critically
Before you read a source, identify at least one clear question you want the text to answer. This question also gives you a starting point to help guide your reading.
Ask yourself…
What questions about your topic are you hoping this source will help answer?
As you read, use your own question along with the following prompts to guide your thinking:
- What is the author's main claim?
- What assumptions underlie the claim?
- What evidence do they use to support it?
- Is the evidence accurate, relevant, and current? (our guide on evaluating information explains this in detail)
- What are the strengths of this source?
- What are its limitations, for example, is it out of date, or does it only focus on a narrow range of cases?
- What has the author emphasised or left out?
- Is the interpretation justified by the evidence?
- How does this source compare to others you have read?
Our downloadable critical reading template (Word, 3MB) can help you ask questions systematically and keep a record of what you have read. Below are a blank template and two completed examples — one from international relations, one from dentistry.
Author(s)
Year
What questions about your topic are you hoping this source will help answer?
1. What is this source about?
2. What is the source’s main claim?
3. What evidence do they use to support it?
4. What assumptions underlie the claim?
5. What are the strengths of this source?
6. What are the limitations of this source?
7. How does this source connect to others you have read?
Title
Type of source (e.g. journal article, book chapter)
Publisher
Link/DOI (digital object identifier)
Author(s)
Morgan et al.
Year
2023
What questions about your topic are you hoping this source will help answer?
How effective are economic sanctions as a tool of foreign policy? What affects whether they work?
1. What is this source about?
A historical and analytical overview of economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool, tracing their evolution from 1950 to 2022 and assessing their economic impact and political effectiveness.
2. What is the source’s main claim?
Sanctions consistently produce significant economic damage to targeted states, but this does not reliably translate into political compliance — sanctions achieve their stated objectives in roughly 42% of cases on average.
3. What evidence do they use to support it?
- Global Sanctions Data Base covering 1,325 cases between 1950 and 2022
- Multilateral sanctions shown to be more successful than unilateral ones
- Targeted financial sanctions more effective than broad trade sanctions
4. What assumptions underlie the claim?
- Success is measured by whether stated political objectives are achieved — but stated objectives may not reflect true aims
- Economic impact and political success are treated as separable, which may not always hold
5. What are the strengths of this source?
- Published in a highly regarded peer-reviewed journal
- Large, well-documented dataset spanning over 70 years
- Authors explicitly address methodological challenges including endogeneity
6. What are the limitations of this source?
- Review essay rather than original empirical research
- Success scores rely partly on official government statements, introducing subjectivity
- Most recent cases, including Russia 2022, acknowledged as too recent to draw firm conclusions from
7. How does this source connect to others you have read?
- Caetano et al. (2023) adds to Morgan et al.; finds that sanctions are more likely to work against unstable or democratic governments.
- Özdamar & Shahin (2021) agrees with Morgan et al.; shows that all the following will affect whether sanctions work: how wide the sanctions are, how strong the target country is, and how much international backing exists.
Title
Economic Sanctions: Evolution, Consequences, and Challenges
Type of source (e.g. journal article, book chapter)
Journal article
Publisher
Journal of Economic Perspectives (American Economic Association)
Link/DOI (digital object identifier)
Author(s)
Veiga et al.
Year
2023
What questions about your topic are you hoping this source will help answer?
Why do so many adults still get tooth decay if dentists know how to prevent it?
1. What is this source about?
A review of methods dentists use to prevent dental caries in adult patients: covering fluoride application, fissure sealants, antimicrobials, dietary advice, and patient education.
2. What is the source’s main claim?
The main barrier to effective caries prevention in adults is not a lack of clinical knowledge among dentists, but insufficient emphasis on preventive dentistry in patient consultations.
3. What evidence do they use to support it?
-
Nine studies from multiple countries, mostly surveys of dentists and dental students
-
Only 34% of dentists in one study assessed caries risk in patients
-
Patients with regular oral hygiene habits and dental visits had significantly fewer caries and less tooth loss
4. What assumptions underlie the claim?
-
Dentist behaviour is treated as the primary lever for improving adult caries outcomes
-
Less weight given to structural factors: access to care, cost, patient health literacy
5. What are the strengths of this source?
-
Peer-reviewed, recent, and draws on studies from multiple national contexts
-
Methodology is transparent: inclusion criteria and quality scores are clearly stated for each study
6. What are the limitations of this source?
-
Only nine studies met the inclusion criteria — a small evidence base
- Most studies are cross-sectional, limiting causal conclusions
- Findings may not transfer outside the specific healthcare systems studied
7. How does this source connect to others you have read?
- Leggett et al. (2023) supports Veiga et al.; finds that even when dentists have knowledge of prevention, patient motivation and structural barriers limit how much they can do.
- Lienhart et al. (2023) extends Veiga et al.; shows the same gap between knowing about prevention and actually delivering it appears across different healthcare settings, not just adult dentistry.
Title
Methods of Primary Clinical Prevention of Dental Caries in the Adult Patient: An Integrative Review
Type of source (e.g. journal article, book chapter)
Journal article
Publisher
Healthcare (MDPI)
Link/DOI (digital object identifier)
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11111635
Caetano, J., Galego, A., & Caleiro, A. (2023). On the determinants of sanctions effectiveness: An empirical analysis by using duration models. Economies, 11(5), 136. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies11050136
Leggett, H., Vinall-Collier, K., Csikar, J., & Douglas, G. V. A. (2023). Barriers to prevention in oral health care for English NHS dental patients: A qualitative study of views from key stakeholders. BMC Oral Health, 23(1), 332. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03030-x
Lienhart, G., Elsa, M., Farge, P., Schott, A.-M., Thivichon-Prince, B., & Chanelière, M. (2023). Factors perceived by health professionals to be barriers or facilitators to caries prevention in children: A systematic review. BMC Oral Health, 23(1), 767. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03458-1
Morgan, T. C., Syropoulos, C., & Yotov, Y. V. (2023). Economic sanctions: Evolution, consequences, and challenges. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 37(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.37.1.3
Özdamar, Ö., & Shahin, E. (2021). Consequences of economic sanctions: The state of the art and paths forward. International Studies Review, 23(4), 1646–1671. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viab029
Veiga, N., Figueiredo, R., Correia, P., Lopes, P., Couto, P., & Fernandes, G. V. O. (2023). Methods of primary clinical prevention of dental caries in the adult patient: An integrative review. Healthcare, 11(11), 1635. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11111635
The referencing style used here is APA 7. Your course may require a different referencing system. Check your assignment brief or module guidance to confirm which style applies to you.
Notetaking should be in your own words rather than copying, highlighting, or using AI to summarise. The act of writing helps you process ideas, not just record them. Our guidance on reading efficiently covers working through a source.
Try this…
Choose one source you are using for a current assignment and complete the critical reading template (Word, 3MB).
Reading multiple sources? Consider using a reading grid.
Facts and interpretations
Most academic texts contain both facts and interpretations. Distinguishing between them is central to critical reading.
A fact is what an author observed or found. An interpretation is what the author thinks it means. Critical reading means deciding whether an interpretation is convincing, well supported, or open to alternative explanations.
For example, a study may find that the students in the study who read daily scored higher in assessments. That is a fact. Concluding that daily reading causes higher scores is an interpretation, because other factors may explain the relationship.
Advanced guidance
This section builds on the essential guidance. It takes a more detailed look at source evaluation and introduces the reading grid for comparing multiple sources.
Evaluating a source in depth
Identifying the facts and interpretations of a source is the starting point. The next step is judging how much weight that evidence deserves.
When you assess a source, consider four areas.
-
Quality and authority
Check who produced the source and if they are credible — supported by expertise, evidence, or a track record of reliable work.
Consider the following questions:
- Is the author a recognised specialist in the field?
- Has a reputable academic publisher or journal published the source?
- Have other academic authors cited or engaged with the source?
Academic sources that have been peer-reviewed — assessed by other specialists before publication — are generally more trustworthy than unreviewed sources. This guidance on identifying academic journals explains what to check for.
-
Currency
Check when the source was published and if the information is still valid for your topic. Older sources are not automatically unsuitable, but topics involving current policy, technology, or active research debate require recent material.
As a rough guide, sources from the last ten years are usually considered current. Fast-moving topics may need more recent material, while sources on long-established topics may remain current for longer.
Check whether the author has published more recent work on the topic. This may confirm, develop, or revise their earlier position.
-
Relevance
A source may be credible and current but still unsuitable for your specific task.
Consider the following questions:
- Does the source directly address your assignment question?
- Do key terms from your brief appear in the title, abstract, or introduction?
- Does its focus — in terms of population, context, or scope — match what you are studying?
-
Bias and balance
Consider whether the source presents a one-sided view.
Consider the following questions:
- Does the author acknowledge alternative positions?
- Has an organisation with a commercial or ideological interest produced it?
- Does the evidence cover a wide range of examples, or does it focus only on cases that support one side?
A source written to persuade, arguing for a particular view, rather than to analyse might be usable. You need to recognise and acknowledge its limitations in your writing. This is especially true for websites, where evaluating internet sources requires extra care.
Try this…
Choose two sources you are using for a current assignment.
- Apply the four evaluation areas — quality, currency, relevance, and bias — to each source.
- For each source, identify one strength and one limitation.
- Compare the two sources. Where do they agree? Where do they differ? Which is more convincing for your specific task, and why?
- Write a two-sentence analytical summary for each source: state the main claim, and comment on the strength or limitation of the evidence.
Evaluating evidence within a source
Once you have judged if a source is worth using, apply the same critical approach to the evidence it contains. For each key piece of evidence, consider:
- Date — is the research current enough for your topic?
- Source — who produced it, and are they credible?
- Methods — who collected the data, and how?
- Relevance — does the evidence clearly support the claim being made?
- Balance — does the author acknowledge limits, gaps, or alternative explanations?
Check if the author explains how the evidence supports their claim, or simply presents it without explanation.
Common problems
Two problems are common when students evaluate sources.
The first is confusing credibility with relevance. A peer-reviewed source written by a recognised expert can still be unsuitable. It may not address the right question or context for your task.
The second is accepting an author's interpretation without checking the evidence behind it. A strong critical reader checks how the evidence supports the claim, then decides if the author's argument is convincing.
Reading templates vs reading grids
A reading template works well for single sources. When you are reading across multiple sources, a reading grid is a way to compare sources across your whole reading list. It helps you identify how they relate to your assignment's themes.
Place your sources in rows and your assignment themes in columns. Column headers come from your assignment brief. Set them before you begin reading, not from what your sources happen to discuss.
Below is an example of a completed reading grid, based on a nursing assignment question.
Assignment question
"Examine the role of communication in delivering person-centred care for older adults with dementia in acute hospital settings. Consider verbal and non-verbal communication, involvement of families and carers, and barriers within the hospital environment."
Reading grid
| Source | Theme 1: Verbal communication | Theme 2: Non-verbal communication | Theme 3: Family and carer involvement | Theme 4: Environmental barriers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harwood et al. (2018) research report (mixed-methods study) | Patients refused or resisted requests in 68% of ward conversations. Confident, clear phrasing worked better than tentative requests; avoid vague closings like "see you soon" (ch. 3) | Refusals were often physical, not spoken — turning the head away, closing the mouth. Staff must read body movement as communication (ch. 3) | Relatives report that poor staff communication can exclude patients and undermine dignity (ch. 1) | Hospital wards are busy, noisy and unfamiliar; pressure for rapid assessment leaves little time for rapport-building with patients who need it most (ch. 1) |
| NICE (2018) national clinical guideline | Encourage the person to give their own views about their care; use modified communication where needed, such as simplified text or visual aids (recs 1.1.1–1.1.2). Staff training should cover adapting communication styles (rec 1.13.2). |
Not covered
(recommends adapting communication but gives no specific non-verbal techniques) |
Involve family members or carers in support and decision-making (rec 1.3.2). Offer carers training in adapting their own communication with the person (rec 1.11.1). Ask the person's consent about what to share with family (rec 1.1.7) | Hospital admission carries extra harms for people with dementia: disorientation, delirium, longer stays, and the effects of an impersonal, institutional environment. Weigh these against medical need; value familiar environments (recs 1.9.1–1.9.3) |
| Häikiö et al. (2020) qualitative study (23 interviews) | Not covered | Not covered | Carers act as "the hub in the wheel" — passing on information, connecting services, filling gaps (p. 3). If this fails, some take assertive steps like keeping staff "on alert" or filing complaints (p. 5) | Not covered |
What this example shows
- Four themes taken from the assignment question form the column headers.
- Three sources are added as rows.
- Notes are brief, with chapter, page or section numbers included.
- Theme 2 is only supported by one source — a gap showing more reading is needed.
- Harwood et al. (2018) and NICE (2018) appear across most themes, so they are central sources. Häikiö et al. (2020) only addresses one theme, so it provides supporting detail.
References
Häikiö, K., Sagbakken, M. and Rugkåsa, J. (2020). 'Family carers' involvement strategies in response to sub-optimal health services to older adults living with dementia – a qualitative study', BMC Geriatrics, 20, 290. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01663-z
Harwood, R.H., O'Brien, R., Goldberg, S.E. et al. (2018). A staff training intervention to improve communication between people living with dementia and health-care professionals in hospital: the VOICE mixed-methods development and evaluation study. Health Services and Delivery Research 6(41). Southampton: NIHR Journals Library. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr06410
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2018). Dementia: assessment, management and support for people living with dementia and their carers (NG97). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng97
The referencing style used here is APA 7. Your course may require a different referencing system. Check your assignment brief or module guidance to confirm which style applies to you.
Build your own reading grid
- Set your column headers. Identify three to four key themes or questions from your assignment brief. These are a starting point — adjust or add to them as your reading develops.
- Add your sources as rows, using author and year as the row label.
- Populate as you read. Record brief notes and page numbers in the relevant cells.
- Review the gaps. Thin or empty columns show where you need to find more sources.
- Use the grid to plan your writing. Sources appearing across many columns are likely to be central. Sources appearing in only one column provide supporting detail for that theme or question.
Using critical reading in your writing
The judgements you make about claims, evidence, and source limitations are the same judgements you express when you write analytically. Our guidance on writing critically explains how to use these judgements in your assignments.
Page last edited: 28 August 2026
Next review due: 7 August 2029