Develop evidenced-based practice questions using PICO format.

10 to >9.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

The introduction clearly and concisely states the paper’s purpose in a single sentence that is engaging and thought-provoking. The introduction clearly states and describes the main topic and previews the structure and content of the paper.

9 to >8.0 pts

Meets expectations

The introduction states the paper’s purpose in a single sentence but it fails to be engaging. The introduction states the main topic but does not adequately preview the structure of the paper.

8 to >7.0 pts

Barely meets expectations

The introduction does state the paper’s purpose but it is convoluted and not engaging. The introduction does not clearly state the topic or preview the structure and content of the paper.

7 to >0 pts

Does not meet expectations

Incomplete or unfocused purpose statement. There is no clear introduction of main topic and/or the structure of the paper is missing.

20 to >18.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

This section effectively describes the significance of the problem including human and societal impact as well as other areas of impact. The problem is significant to the student’s identified practice area and has significant impact on the student’s discipline and patient outcomes. Current data on incidence and/or prevalence is included. Exemplary discussion of cultural, political, legal, ethical, quality, safety, and financial implications is included if appropriate. There is substantiation with adequate number and quality of professional references with no uncited statements of fact. The student made all of the corrections recommended in the practice problem/PICO assignment

18 to >16.0 pts

Meets Expectations

This section describes the significance of the problem including human and societal impact. The problem is significant to the student’s identified practice area. Current data on incidence and/or prevalence is included. Cultural, political, legal, ethical, quality, safety, and financial implications are included if appropriate. There is substantiation with adequate number and quality of professional references with no uncited statements of fact. The student made most of the corrections recommended in the practice problem/PICO paper assignment.

16 to >14.0 pts

Barely meets expectations

This section provides a brief description of the problem but fails to describes the significance of the problem including human and societal impact. The problem is significant to the student’s identified practice area. Current data on incidence and/or prevalence is limited and cultural, political, legal, ethical, quality, and safety implications are either not included even when appropriate. There is substantiation with only a limited number and quality of professional references with no uncited statements of fact. The student made some of the corrections recommended in the practice problem/PICO paper assignment.

14 to >0 pts

Does not meet expectations

This section identifies the problem but does not effectively describe the significance of the problem. The problem is not a current issue or the issue does have significance to the student’s identified practice area. Current data on incidence and/or prevalence and/or cultural, political, legal, ethical, quality, safety, and financial implications are not included. There is no substantiation with an adequate number and quality of professional references and/or there are uncited statements of fact. The student did not make corrections recommended the practice problem/PICO paper assignment.

20 to >18.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

There is a clear description of the population/problem of interest, intervention, comparison, outcome, and timing. The student made all corrections recommended in the practice problem/PICO paper assignment.

18 to >16.0 pts

Meets Expectations

There is a description of the population/problem of interest, intervention, comparison, outcome, and timing. The student made most of corrections recommended in the practice problem/PICO paper assignment.

16 to >14.0 pts

Barely meets expectations

There is a superficial description of the population/problem of interest, intervention, comparison, outcome, and timing. The student made some of corrections recommended in the practice problem/PICO paper assignment.

14 to >0 pts

Does not meet expectations

There is an incomplete description of the population/problem of interest, intervention, comparison, outcome, and timing. The student did not make corrections recommended in the practice problem/PICO paper assignment.

20 to >18.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

There is an exemplary discussion of the search strategy which includes keywords (with alternate spellings, abbreviations, etc.), MESH headings, inclusion and exclusion criteria, databases used and results of the search. Any studies which meet inclusion criteria and do not meet exclusion criteria but are excluded are explained. The search is clearly replicable by any reader.

18 to >16.0 pts

Meets Expectations

The discussion of the search strategy includes keywords, inclusion and exclusion criteria, databases used and results of the search. Any studies which meet inclusion criteria and do not meet exclusion criteria but are excluded are explained. The search may not be replicable by any reader.

16 to >14.0 pts

Barely meets expectations

The discussion of the search strategy includes keywords, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data bases used and results of the search. There is not explanation of exclusion of studies which meet inclusion criteria and do not meet exclusion criteria. The search is not replicable.

14 to >0 pts

Does not meet expectations

The search strategy and results are superficial and/or difficult to understand.

40 to >36.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

Substantial review of the literature is evident in the synthesis and covers all facets of the problem with numerous (more than 5 primary research articles and/or summaries) references linking the practice problem and the selected intervention. This section is a synthesis rather than a study by study review of the literature. Only research evidence is included in the synthesis; no secondary sources are included. Studies from US only are include unless valid reason is given for inclusion of international studies.

36 to >32.0 pts

Meets Expectations

Substantial review of the literature is evident in the synthesis and covers all facets of the problem with numerous (at least 5 primary research articles and/or summaries) references linking the practice problem and the selected intervention. This section is a synthesis rather than a study by study review of the literature. Only research evidence is included in the synthesis; no secondary sources are included. Studies from US only are include unless valid reason is given for inclusion of international studies.

32 to >30.0 pts

Barely meets expectations

A review of the literature is evident in the synthesis and covers most facets of the problem with fewer than 5 primary research articles and/or summaries linking the practice problem and the selected intervention OR this section is a study by study review of the literature rather than a synthesis OR nonresearch and secondary sources are included. International studies are included and a valid reason is not given for their inclusion.

30 to >0 pts

Does not meet expectations

Only a superficial review of the literature is evident with fewer than 3 primary research articles and/or summaries linking the practice problem and the selected intervention OR this section is a study by study review of the literature rather than a synthesis AND nonresearch and secondary sources are included.

10 to >9.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

There is an exemplary synthesis matrix with multiple main ideas included as a Table. The main ideas are logically extracted from the evidence and each one is cited in three or more references. All studies that were not excluded by identified exclusion criteria are included on the matrix.

9 to >8.0 pts

Meets Expectations

The synthesis matrix has at least 3 main ideas is included as a Table. The main ideas are logically extracted from the evidence and each one is cited in at least two references. All studies that were not excluded by identified exclusion criteria are included on the matrix. Incorrect formatting used.

8 to >7.0 pts

Barely meets expectations

The synthesis matrix included as a Table has fewer than 3 main ideas OR only 1-2 studies that were not excluded by identified exclusion criteria were not included on the matrix. Incorrect formatting used.

7 to >0 pts

Does not meet expectations

The synthesis matrix included as a Table has fewer than 3 main ideas AND several studies that were not excluded by identified exclusion criteria were not include on the matrix. Incorrect formatting used.

20 to >17.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

There is an exemplary description of the practice recommendation and it is based on only high level evidence (levels I-III). The practice recommendations are consistent with the synthesis of the literature. There is logical progression from the synthesis of the literature to the practice recommendation. The recommendation is written succinctly and consistent with the scientific evidence. The Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice rating for level and quality is included and appropriate.

17 to >14.0 pts

Meets Expectations

There is a description of the practice recommendation and it is based on only high level evidence. The practice recommendation is consistent with the scientific evidence and there is a logical progression from the synthesis of the literature to the practice recommendation. The Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice rating for level and quality is included and appropriate.

14 to >10.0 pts

Barely meets expectations

There is a description of the practice recommendation but it is not based on high level evidence and/or the recommendation is convoluted and not consistent with high level scientific evidence. The Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice rating for level and quality is included but not appropriate.

10 to >0 pts

Does not meet expectations

There is a superficial practice recommendation but it is based on nonscientific evidence and/or the recommendation is not consistent with the scientific evidence and/or the Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice rating for level and quality is not included.

50 to >45.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

Evidence tables of primary research and systematic reviews are included as tables and include more than 7 primary research and/or summaries. Only research evidence is included on the evidence table and is appropriate to use in the setting and population. No secondary sources are included. The tables show an excellent extraction of information from the published reports. Used the provided template with the correct formatting. Paraphrased and did not copy directly from source.

45 to >40.0 pts

Meets Expectations

Evidence tables of primary research and systematic reviews are included as tables and include more than 5 primary research and/or summaries. Only research evidence is included on the evidence table. and is appropriate to use in the setting and population. No secondary sources are included. The tables are complete and accurate.

40 to >35.0 pts

Barely meets expectations

Evidence tables of primary research and systematic reviews are included as tables but include 5 primary research and/or summaries. Only research evidence is included on the evidence table and is appropriate to use in the setting and population. No secondary sources are included. The tables are incomplete or the information in the tables is inaccurate.

35 to >0 pts

Does not meet expectations

Evidence tables of primary research and systematic reviews are not included as tables OR the evidence tables contain nonresearch publications OR secondary sources OR the number of primary research studies plus the systematic reviews is less than 5 OR studies are inappropriate to setting or population.

10 to >9.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

The conclusion reviews the main topics presented and clearly and effectively summarizes significant conclusions. Does not introduce new information.

9 to >8.0 pts

Meets Expectations

The conclusion reviews the main topics presented and summarizes significant conclusions.

8 to >7.0 pts

Barely meets expectations

There is either a summary OR a conclusion.

7 to >0 pts

Does not meet expectations

There is neither a conclusion or summary.

20 to >18.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

There is logical sequencing of ideas through well-developed paragraphs; transitions are used to enhance organization. There are no more than 2 errors in punctuation, capitalization, or spelling. There are no errors in sentence structure or word usage. Paraphrasing is used effectively. No more than 1 direct quotation used.

18 to >16.0 pts

Meets Expectations

There is logical sequencing of ideas through well-developed paragraphs; transitions are usually effective in enhancing organization. There are few (2-4) errors in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, sentence structure or word usage. There are no more than 2 quotations.

16 to >14.0 pts

Barely meets expectations

There is logical organization but some ideas are not fully or consistently developed OR transitions are awkward at times although the flow is adequately maintained. There are several (5-8) errors in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, sentence structure or word usage. There are more than 2 quotations.

14 to >0 pts

Does not meet expectations

There is no evidence of structure or organization. Ideas are not fully developed. Minimal use of transitions throughout the paper. There are >8 errors in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, sentence structure, or word usage with significant impact on the content and detracts from the paper. There are more than 4 quotations.