Applied Sciences Assignment 3

80 to >71.0 pts

Excellent

The presentation clearly and accurately identifies and describes in detail the chosen clinical issue of interest. ...The presentation clearly and accurately describes in detail the developed PICO(T) question. ...The presentation clearly and accurately identifies four or more research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected. ...The presentation includes specific and relevant examples that fully support the research. ...The presentation provides a complete, detailed, and accurate synthesis of two outside resources related to the peer-reviewed articles selected, and fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the presentation.

71 to >63.0 pts

Good

The presentation accurately identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest. ...The presentation accurately describes the developed PICO(T) question focused on the chosen clinical issue of interest. ...The presentation accurately identifies at least four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected. ...The presentation includes relevant examples that support the research presented.

63 to >55.0 pts

Fair

The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest. ...The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes the developed PICO(T) question focused on the chosen clinical issue of interest. ...The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies at least four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected. ...The presentation includes inaccurate or vague examples to support the research presented.

55 to >0 pts

Poor

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest or is missing. ...The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes the developed PICO(T) question or is missing. ...The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies less than four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected or is missing. ...The presentation includes inaccurate and vague examples to support the research presented or is missing.

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Using proper in-text citations, the presentation clearly and accurately provides at least four peer-reviewed systematic review type articles selected, describes the levels of evidence in each of the four articles selected, including a thorough and detailed explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good

Using proper in-text citations, the presentation accurately provides at least four systematic review type peer-reviewed articles selected including adequate explanation of the levels of evidence, the strengths of using a systematic review for

3 to >2.0 pts

Fair

Using proper in-text citations, the presentation provides a vague or inaccurate synthesis or outside resources related to the systematic review type peer-reviewed articles selected. The response minimally explains the levels of evidence and the strengths of using a systematic review and/or minimally integrates resources that may support the presentation.

2 to >0 pts

Poor

The presentation provides a vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources related to the articles selected and fails to integrate any resources to support the presentation or is missing.

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Presentation includes 4 or more peer-reviewed articles selected using systematic reviews for clinical research. ...Citations use correct APA format with no errors.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good

Presentation includes 3 peer-reviewed articles selected using systematic reviews for clinical research. ...Citations use correct APA format with few (1-2) errors.

3 to >2.0 pts

Fair

Presentation includes 2 peer-reviewed articles selected using systematic reviews for clinical research. ...Citations contain several (3-4) APA format errors.

2 to >0 pts

Poor

Presentation includes 1 or no resources. ... Citations contain many >5 APA format errors.

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

The presentation is professional; images are appropriately attributed; images are clear. The presentation text is readable. Presentation flows well and is presented in a logical order.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good

Eighty percent of the presentation is professional; images are appropriately attributed; images are clear. The presentation text is readable. Presentation flows well and is presented in a logical order.

3 to >2.0 pts

Fair

Sixty to seventy nine percent of the presentation follows these guidelines: presentation is professional; images are appropriately attributed; images are clear. The presentation text is readable. Presentation flows well and is presented in a logical order.

2 to >0 pts

Poor

Less than sixty percent of the presentation follows these guidelines: presentation is professional; images are appropriately attributed; images are clear. The presentation text is readable. Presentation flows well and is presented in a logical order.

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good

Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3 to >2.0 pts

Fair

Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

2 to >0 pts

Poor

Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.