EVIDENCE-BASED PROJECT, PART 3: CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF RESEARCH
EVIDENCE-BASED PROJECT, PART 3: CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF RESEARCH
Realtors rely on detailed property appraisals—conducted using appraisal tools—to assign market values to houses and other properties. These values are then presented to buyers and sellers to set prices and initiate offers.
Research appraisal is not that different. The critical appraisal process utilizes formal appraisal tools to assess the results of research to determine value to the context at hand. Evidence-based practitioners often present these findings to make the case for specific courses of action.
In this Assignment, you will use an appraisal tool to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
To Prepare:
- Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and the four systematic reviews (or other filtered high- level evidence) you selected in Module 3.
- Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3.
- Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template provided in the Resources.
The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)
Part 3A: Critical Appraisal of Research
Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected by completing the Evaluation Table within the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Choose a total of four peer- reviewed articles that you selected related to your clinical topic of interest in Module 2 and Module 3.
Note: You can choose any combination of articles from Modules 2 and 3 for your Critical Appraisal. For example, you may choose two unfiltered research articles from Module 2 and two filtered research articles (systematic reviews) from Module 3 or one article from Module 2 and three articles from Module 3. You can choose any combination of articles from the prior Module Assignments as long as both modules and types of studies are represented.
Part 3B: Critical Appraisal of Research
Based on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.
BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 7
Submit Part 3A and 3B of your Evidence-Based Project.
EVIDENCE-BASED PROJECT, PART 3: CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF RESEARCH
Realtors rely on detailed property appraisals—conducted using appraisal tools—to assign market values to houses and other properties. These values are then presented to buyers and sellers to set prices and initiate offers.
Research appraisal is not that different. The critical appraisal process utilizes formal appraisal tools to assess the results of research to determine value to the context at hand. Evidence-based practitioners often present these findings to make the case for specific courses of action.
In this Assignment, you will use an appraisal tool to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity. Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
To Prepare:
· Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and the four systematic reviews (or other filtered high- level evidence) you selected in Module 3.
· Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3.
· Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template provided in the Resources.
The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)
Part 3A: Critical Appraisal of Research
Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected by completing the Evaluation Table within the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Choose a total of four peer- reviewed articles that you selected related to your clinical topic of interest in Module 2 and Module 3.
Note: You can choose any combination of articles from Modules 2 and 3 for your Critical Appraisal. For example, you may choose two unfiltered research articles from Module 2 and two filtered research articles (systematic reviews) from Module 3 or one article from Module 2 and three articles from Module 3. You can choose any combination of articles from the prior Module Assignments as long as both modules and types of studies are represented.
Part 3B: Critical Appraisal of Research
Based on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.
BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 7
Submit Part 3A and 3B of your Evidence-Based Project.
SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as MD4Assgn+last name+first initial.
2. Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
3. Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric
|
NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric |
||
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 3A: Critical Appraisal of ResearchCritical Appraisal of Research Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected and analyzed by completing the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Be sure to include: · An Evaluation Table |
45 to >40.0 ptsExcellentThe critical appraisal accurately and clearly provides a detailed evaluation table. …The responses provide a detailed, specific, and accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected. 40 to >35.0 ptsGoodThe critical appraisal accurately provides an evaluation table. …The responses provide an accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected with some specificity. 35 to >31.0 ptsFairThe critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate or vague. …The responses provide an inaccurate or vague evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected. 31 to >0 ptsPoorThe critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate and vague or is missing. |
45 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 3B: Evidence-Based Best PracticesEvidence-Based Best Practices Based on your appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with the selected resources. |
35 to >31.0 ptsExcellentThe responses accurately and clearly suggest a detailed best practice that is fully aligned to the research reviewed. …The responses accurately and clearly explain in detail the best practice, with sufficient justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. …The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of the four peer reviewed articles. 31 to >27.0 ptsGoodThe responses accurately suggest a best practice that is adequately aligned to the research reviewed. …The responses accurately explain the best practice, with adequately justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. …The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed on the best practice explained. 27 to >24.0 ptsFairThe responses inaccurately or vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed. …The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate or vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field. …The responses provide a vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. 24 to >0 ptsPoorThe responses inaccurately and vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed or are missing. …The responses inaccurately and vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate and vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field or are missing. …A vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained is provided or is missing. |
35 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResource Synthesis |
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentThe response fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the responses provided. 4 to >3.0 ptsGoodThe response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the responses provided. 3 to >2.0 ptsFairThe response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided. 2 to >0 ptsPoorThe response fails to integrate any resources to support the responses provided. |
5 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization:Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided, which delineates all required criteria. |
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. …A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria. 4 to >3.0 ptsGoodParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. …Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated but are brief and not descriptive. 3 to >2.0 ptsFairParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time. …Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. 2 to >0 ptsPoorParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. …No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion is provided. |
5 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation. |
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentUses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 to >3.0 ptsGoodContains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 to >2.0 ptsFairContains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 2 to >0 ptsPoorContains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. |
5 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting:The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. |
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentUses correct APA format with no errors. 4 to >3.0 ptsGoodContains a few (one or two) APA format errors. 3 to >2.0 ptsFairContains several (three or four) APA format errors. 2 to >0 ptsPoorContains many (five or more) APA format errors. |
5 pts |
Total Points: 100
,[removed],
Top of Form
|
AJN, American Journal of Nursing Issue: Volume 110(11), November 2010, pp 43-51 Copyright: (C) 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. Publication Type: [Feature Articles] DOI: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000390523.99066.b5 ISSN: 0002-936X Accession: 00000446-201011000-00027
[Feature Articles] « Previous Article Table of Contents Next Article » Evidence-Based Practice, Step by Step: Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Part III Fineout-Overholt, Ellen PhD, RN, FNAP, FAAN; Melnyk, Bernadette Mazurek PhD, RN, CPNP/PMHNP, FNAP, FAAN; Stillwell, Susan B. DNP, RN, CNE; Williamson, Kathleen M. PhD, RN Author Information
Ellen Fineout-Overholt is clinical professor and director of the Center for the Advancement of Evidence-Based Practice at Arizona State University in Phoenix, where Bernadette Mazurek Melnyk is dean and distinguished foundation professor of nursing, Susan B. Stillwell is clinical associate professor and program coordinator of the Nurse Educator Evidence-Based Practice Mentorship Program, and Kathleen M. Williamson is associate director of the Center for the Advancement of Evidence-Based Practice. Contact author: Ellen Fineout-Overholt, [email protected]. AI Article Summary BETA
|
