Free ATI TEAS 7 Reading guide
October 2026 - Evaluating & Integrating Sources Study Guide for nursing students in
These questions give you two or more texts and ask you to weigh them together: where do they agree, where do they conflict, and which is more credible given who wrote it and why. The answer is never simply "the more recent one" — it depends on what is being claimed.
Reading two texts together
Work through the pair in this order rather than reading each one fully in turn.
- Identify each text's claim in one sentence, before comparing anything.
- Mark where they say the same thing. Shared ground is often what a question asks for.
- Mark where they genuinely conflict — the same question answered differently — as against merely covering different ground.
- Ask why they differ: different evidence, different period, different population, or different purpose.
Conflict is not always contradiction
Two texts that look opposed frequently are not. One may study a different group, measure a different outcome, or describe a different time. A 2008 paper reporting that a treatment rarely helps and a 2022 paper reporting that it usually does may both be correct if the treatment or the patient selection changed in between.
Real contradiction means the same claim about the same thing, answered incompatibly. Anything else is a difference in scope, and questions reward noticing which of the two you are looking at.
Which source carries more weight
Credibility is a judgement made across four dimensions at once, not a ranking of document types.
| Dimension | Ask | When it decides the matter |
|---|---|---|
| Author | What expertise and what stake? | When one source has a commercial or political interest in the answer |
| Evidence | Data, or assertion? | Almost always. A cited study beats a confident opinion |
| Date | How fast does this field move? | Clinical guidance, technology, epidemiology |
| Purpose | Written to inform, to sell, or to campaign? | When a source's conclusion is what it was funded to find |
A source can be biased and correct. Bias is a reason to check a claim more carefully, not a reason to discard it — and a distractor that rejects a source purely because of who wrote it is testing whether you know the difference.
Terms to know
- Synthesis
- Combining what several sources say into one account of the subject.
- Corroboration
- Independent sources supporting the same claim, which strengthens it.
- Contradiction
- Two sources answering the same question about the same thing incompatibly.
- Credibility
- How much weight a source deserves, judged on author, evidence, date and purpose.
- Conflict of interest
- A stake in the conclusion that could shape what a source reports.
- Scope
- What a source actually covers — the population, period and outcome it studied.
What the TEAS asks most
The same core ideas appear in different wording. If you can answer these without stopping to think, you have what this section requires.
On which point do the two passages agree?
The claim both make, in different words. Watch for a point only one of them makes.
How would the author of Passage 2 respond to Passage 1?
Answer from Passage 2's stated position, not from what a reasonable critic could say.
Which source is more reliable for this claim, and why?
Weigh evidence first, then purpose, then date. Name the reason — the question usually wants it.
Do the two sources actually contradict each other?
Only if they answer the same question about the same population and outcome.
Key points
- State each source's claim in one sentence before comparing them.
- Separate genuine contradiction from a difference of scope, period or population.
- Credibility comes from evidence, purpose, expertise and date together.
- Corroboration by an independent source strengthens a claim more than repetition does.
- A biased source may still be right; bias means check, not discard.
Review quiz
4 questions on this topic, each with the reasoning worked through. Pick an answer to see how it went, or open the explanation straight away.
Read the passage, then answer the questions below
Passage 1 — A 2016 review of hospital discharge practice concluded that follow-up telephone calls two days after discharge had no measurable effect on readmission rates. The review pooled eleven studies, all of them conducted in general medical wards, and all of them using calls made by administrative staff working from a script.
Passage 2 — A 2023 trial found that follow-up calls reduced thirty-day readmissions by a fifth. In this trial the calls were made by a pharmacist who had access to the patient's discharge medication list and could change a dose or arrange a review on the call itself.
-
Question 1 of 4
Do the two passages contradict each other?
Show the answer and explanation
Correct answer: B. No — they studied different kinds of call, so the findings can both hold.
The 2016 review examined scripted calls by administrative staff and the 2023 trial examined clinical calls by a pharmacist who could act on what she found, so the two are answering different questions and both results can stand. Treating them as a straight contradiction ignores the difference in what was actually done, and Passage 2 plainly does report an effect.
-
Question 2 of 4
On what point do the two passages agree?
Show the answer and explanation
Correct answer: B. That telephone follow-up after discharge is worth studying as a way of affecting readmissions
Both texts take readmission-focused telephone follow-up as a subject worth measuring, which is the shared ground even though their findings differ. Only Passage 2 reports a reduction, and neither passage makes any recommendation about who should or should not be making calls.
-
Question 3 of 4
A student concludes: "The 2023 trial is more reliable because it is more recent." What is wrong with this reasoning?
Show the answer and explanation
Correct answer: B. Date alone does not settle it; the review pooled eleven studies, and the difference between them is what the calls involved.
Recency matters, but here the substantive difference is the intervention itself, and a pooled review of eleven studies is not weaker merely for being older. Reviews are not automatically stronger than trials either — it depends what was pooled — and demanding funding information before drawing any conclusion sets an impossible bar.
-
Question 4 of 4
Which extra piece of information would best help a reader integrate the two findings?
Show the answer and explanation
Correct answer: A. Whether a pharmacist-led call still works when the pharmacist cannot change medication
Isolating the pharmacist's power to act would test the very mechanism that distinguishes the two studies, which is what integration requires. Sample size and journal are useful for weighing quality without explaining the difference, and patient enjoyment is a separate outcome from readmission.
Put this TEAS topic into practice
Build a set on evaluating and integrating sources and use the rationale on every question to reinforce what you just reviewed.
Keep reading
More TEAS Resources
Guides and tools across the TEAS course.
TEAS 7 Exam Prep
Format, sections, timing
TEAS 7 FAQ
Scoring, retakes, test day
Is the TEAS Hard?
An honest answer
How Long Is the TEAS 7?
209 minutes, section by section
What Is a Passing TEAS Score?
Your programme sets the bar
TEAS Reading
18 topics · 39 scored questions
TEAS Math
18 topics · 34 scored questions
TEAS Science
22 topics · 44 scored questions
TEAS English
21 topics · 33 scored questions
Free TEAS Practice Test
Sit a set before you buy
TEAS Plans & Pricing
Choose your access
Start TEAS Prep
Create your account
TEAS Study Guide
All four sections, free
8-Week Study Plan
Week-by-week schedule
TEAS Cheat Sheet
Formulas and high-yield facts
TEAS vs HESI A2
Which exam to take
