Clinical judgment
Evidence Based Practice Course: Fa26 ADNG 2100 50-65 Clinical II
Cri- ter ia
Level 5 4.1–5.0 points
Level 4 3.1–4.0 points
Level 3 2.1–3.0 points
Level 2 1.1–2.0 points
Level 1 0.0–1.0 points
Criterion Score
In-
tro-
duc-
ti
o
n
&
Con-
clu-
si
o
n
/ 5Introduc‐ tion con‐ cisely de‐ scribes the pur‐ pose and direction of the project. Clearly de‐ scribes the na‐ ture of the prob‐ lem and identifies the inter‐ ventions being exam‐ ined. Provides some relevant statistics or facts to em‐ phasize the im‐ portance of issues and en‐ gage reader interest.
Intro‐ duction general‐ ly de‐ scribes the pur‐ pose and di‐ rection of the project. Identi‐ fies the inter‐ ventions being exam‐ ined but does not in‐ troduce the prob‐ lem. Does not pro‐ vide rel‐ evant sta‐ tistics or facts to empha‐ size the impor‐ tance of the is‐ sue to
Intro‐ duction general‐ ly de‐ scribes the pur‐ pose and di‐ rection of the project. Identi‐ fies the inter‐ ventions being exam‐ ined but does not in‐ troduce the prob‐ lem. Does not pro‐ vide rel‐ evant sta‐ tistics or facts to empha‐ size the impor‐ tance of the is‐ sue to
Intro‐ duction is ex‐ ces‐ sively long, bringing in data better pre‐ sented else‐ where in the project. OR Intro‐ duction does not state pur‐ pose or direc‐ tion for project Topic is unrelat‐ ed to nursing inter‐ vention or prac‐ tice. Conclu‐ sion pro‐
No intro‐ duction provid‐ ed, in‐ stead begins with dis‐ cussion of prob‐ lem. Intro‐ duction is nearly entirely opinion and fails to identi‐ fy pur‐ pose or direction of project. Topic is unrelat‐ ed to nursing interven‐ tion or practice. Conclu‐ sion is opinion on what interven‐ tion to adopt without
https://ntcmn.learn.minnstate.edu/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_…t_files.d2l?db=15566724&grpid=0&isprv=0&bp=0&ou=7685811 9/21/26, 8:58 PM Page 1 of 12
His-
t
o
r
y
o
f
Nurs-
in
g
Prac-
ti
c
e
/ 5
The topic is clearly nursing interven‐ tion. Con‐ cludes with a well-con‐ structed summary of what was ad‐ dressed in the project.
engage the reader. The top‐ ic is re‐ lated to nursing inter‐ vention or prac‐ tice. Con‐ cludes with a brief summa‐ ry of what was ad‐ dressed in project.
engage the reader. Topic is related to nurs‐ ing in‐ terven‐ tion or prac‐ tice. Con‐ cludes with a summa‐ ry of what was found in litera‐ ture in relation to prac‐ tice ex‐ amined.
vides incom‐ plete sum‐ mariza‐ tion of the cur‐ rent practice and/or the rival practice but does not sum‐ marize other re‐ quired ele‐ ments of the project.
substan‐ tiating evi‐ dence.
Clearly identifies the prob‐ lem the interven‐ tions ad‐ dress. Identifies a nursing interven‐ tion or practice as well as a new, emerging interven‐ tion/prac‐ tice. Clearly summa‐ rizes the history of and/or
Briefly men‐ tions the prob‐ lem the inter‐ ven‐ tions ad‐ dress. Identi‐ fies multi‐ ple nurs‐ ing prac‐ tice inter‐ ven‐ tions, mak‐
Does not identi‐ fy the prob‐ lem the inter‐ ven‐ tions ad‐ dress. Gener‐ ally, dis‐ cusses inter‐ ven‐ tions used to ad‐ dress the prob‐
Omis‐ sion or inaccu‐ rate identifi‐ cation of the prob‐ lem ad‐ dressed by in‐ terven‐ tions. Fails to identify both a current and emerg‐ ing prac‐ tice. Identi‐ fies a
Omits this sec‐ tion or ad‐ dress‐ es it only as 2-3 sen‐ tences within the con‐ text of the analy‐ sis sec‐ tion
https://ntcmn.learn.minnstate.edu/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_…t_files.d2l?db=15566724&grpid=0&isprv=0&bp=0&ou=7685811 9/21/26, 8:58 PM Page 2 of 12
previous research on the practice/ interven‐ tion.
ing it un‐ clear which is the current and which is the emerg‐ ing prac‐ tice. OR Identi‐ fies only the current prac‐ tice with‐ out intro‐ ducing an emerg‐ ing prac‐ tice Dis‐ cusses some of the history and/or previ‐ ous re‐ search sur‐ round‐ ing the prac‐ tice/ inter‐ ven‐ tion.
lem but does not clearly identi‐ fy a current and emerg‐ ing prac‐ tice. Mini‐ mal history or pre‐ vious re‐ search of the prac‐ tice/ inter‐ ven‐ tion is pre‐ sent‐ ed.
medical practice issue instead of a nursing inter‐ vention. Unable to pro‐ vide a history of inter‐ ven‐ tions used to address prob‐ lem.
https://ntcmn.learn.minnstate.edu/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_…t_files.d2l?db=15566724&grpid=0&isprv=0&bp=0&ou=7685811 9/21/26, 8:58 PM Page 3 of 12
T
a
k
e
a
S
t
a
n
d
&
Bar-
ri-
e
rs
a
n
d
Rec-
om-
men-
da-
ti
o
n
s
/ 5Clearly states if nurs‐ ing in‐ terven‐ tion should contin‐ ue or discon‐ tinue and is sup‐ ported by re‐ search; must be cit‐ ed. Is able to make inde‐ pen‐ dent valid infer‐ ences based on re‐ search to identify several poten‐ tial barri‐ ers. Pro‐ vides thor‐ ough analy‐ sis of barri‐ ers that pre‐ vent
Briefly or un‐ clearly states if nurs‐ ing in‐ terven‐ tion should contin‐ ue or discon‐ tinue is sup‐ ported by re‐ search; must be cit‐ ed. Makes at least 2 con‐ ceiv‐ able infer‐ ences , but not consis‐ tently sup‐ ported by re‐ search infor‐ mation. Briefly ana‐ lyzes barri‐ ers that pre‐ vent the recom‐ mend‐ ed evi‐ dence
The stance on whether nursing inter‐ vention should contin‐ ue or not is un‐ clear; may or may not include sup‐ ported re‐ search or cita‐ tion. Only able to identify barriers pre‐ sented by au‐ thor of articles. OR Only identi‐ fies two barriers that are weakly sup‐ ported. Para‐ phrases analy‐ sis of barriers found in re‐ search that
Slide includ‐ ed but no clear stance, re‐ search, or cita‐ tion includ‐ ed. Shal‐ low or incom‐ plete analy‐ sis of barri‐ ers identi‐ fied in re‐ search that pre‐ vent or hinder the im‐ ple‐ menta‐ tion of the ev‐ idence based best prac‐ tice nursing inter‐ ven‐ tion. Pro‐ vides only one weakly sup‐ ported
No slide included for stance on inter‐ vention. No analysis of barri‐ ers is present‐ ed Presents a list of potential barriers com‐ pletely devoid of sup‐ port in the liter‐ ature. No OR unrealis‐ tic strat‐ egy pro‐ vided for over‐ coming potential barri‐ ers.
https://ntcmn.learn.minnstate.edu/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_…t_files.d2l?db=15566724&grpid=0&isprv=0&bp=0&ou=7685811 9/21/26, 8:58 PM Page 4 of 12
Pro-
fes-
sion-
al
S
t
yl
e
/ 5
the recom‐ mend‐ ed evi‐ dence based best- prac‐ tice nursing inter‐ vention from being imple‐ ment‐ ed. Pro‐ vides at least 2 rec‐ om‐ men‐ dations for over‐ coming the identi‐ fied barri‐ ers.
based best- prac‐ tice nursing inter‐ vention from being imple‐ ment‐ ed. Pro‐ vides at least 2 rec‐ om‐ men‐ dations for over‐ coming the identi‐ fied barri‐ ers.
prevent the rec‐ om‐ mend‐ ed evi‐ dence based best- practice nursing inter‐ vention from being imple‐ ment‐ ed. Pro‐ vides at least 1 recom‐ menda‐ tion for over‐ coming the identi‐ fied barri‐ ers.
strate‐ gy for over‐ coming poten‐ tial or exist‐ ing barri‐ ers.
Is coher‐ ently & logically orga‐ nized, and easy to follow. Consis‐ tently uses headings correctly Minimal spelling or gram‐ matical errors.
Is gen‐ erally well-or‐ ganized and easy to follow. Uses head‐ ings Occa‐ sional spelling & gram‐ matical errors. Termi‐
Is some‐ what orga‐ nized but of‐ ten chal‐ lenging to fol‐ low. Does not use head‐ ings to direct reader.
Is poor‐ ly orga‐ nized, difficult to read – does not flow logically from one part to anoth‐ er. Does not use head‐ ings
Is very poorly orga‐ nized and ex‐ tremely difficult to follow – intent usually unclear. No use of head‐ ings and unclear what section
https://ntcmn.learn.minnstate.edu/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_…t_files.d2l?db=15566724&grpid=0&isprv=0&bp=0&ou=7685811 9/21/26, 8:58 PM Page 5 of 12
Terminol‐ ogy is clearly defined, avoiding jargon or personal opinion. Is written at a pro‐ fessional level with regard to target audience (nurs‐ ing). Is clear, concise, and per‐ suasive. Correctly uses APA for‐ mat & style through‐ out. Meets require‐ ments of at least 5 scholarly refer‐ ences (4 citations within the last 5 years). Includes Title and Refer‐ ence slide in correct APA for‐ mat.
nology is usu‐ ally de‐ fined, with oc‐ casional inclu‐ sion of person‐ al opin‐ ion. Is writ‐ ten at a profes‐ sional level with re‐ gard to target audi‐ ence (nurs‐ ing). Is usu‐ ally clear & persua‐ sive but could be more concise. Uses APA for‐ mat & style through‐ out with occa‐ sional errors present. Meets require‐ ments of 4 pages of at least 5 scholar‐
Fre‐ quent spelling, gram‐ matical, or me‐ chanical errors. Termi‐ nology is occa‐ sionally defined, with fre‐ quent inclu‐ sion of person‐ al opin‐ ion. Writing needs to be more concise, contain‐ ing ex‐ cess ver‐ biage. Fre‐ quent errors in APA for‐ mat & style through‐ out. Meets require‐ ments of at least 4 scholar‐ ly refer‐ ence (3 citations within the last
Fre‐ quent spelling & gram‐ matical errors. Fre‐ quent me‐ chani‐ cal er‐ rors such as incon‐ sisten‐ cies in lan‐ guage or verb tense and poor struc‐ ture which dis‐ tracts the learner. Writing is un‐ clear with excess ver‐ biage. At times in‐ cludes large pas‐ sages at a medical level. Does not fol‐ low
is being ad‐ dressed. Fre‐ quent spelling, gram‐ matical, and me‐ chanical errors. No at‐ tempt made to use APA style. No cita‐ tions in text Refer‐ ence slide ab‐ sent or does not follow APA for‐ mat and only lists public web‐ sites. Title slide ab‐ sent or makes no at‐ tempt to follow APA for‐ mat.
https://ntcmn.learn.minnstate.edu/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_…t_files.d2l?db=15566724&grpid=0&isprv=0&bp=0&ou=7685811 9/21/26, 8:58 PM Page 6 of 12
ly refer‐ ences (3 cita‐ tions within the last 5 years). Includes Title and Refer‐ ence slide with some errors in APA for‐ mat.
5 years). Includes Title and Refer‐ ence slide with many errors in APA for‐ mat.
APA style or cite sources using APA format. Title or Refer‐ ence slide absent or does not fol‐ low APA format. Fewer than 4 scholar‐ ly jour‐ nals cited or most journals older than 5 years.
Cri- ter ia
Level 5 9–10 points
Level 4 7–8 points
Level 3 5–6 points
Level 2 3–4 points
Level 1 0–2 points
Criterion Score
/ 10Accu‐ rately summa‐ rizes signifi‐ cant findings found from re‐ view of literature regard‐ ing the current and rival
Summa‐ rizes most signifi‐ cant findings found from re‐ view of literature regard‐ ing the current and rival practice.
Summa‐ rizes findings found from re‐ view of literature regard‐ ing inter‐ ventions to ad‐ dress issue. Presents advan‐
Re‐ search select‐ ed is not rel‐ evant to the ar‐ gument or is vague and in‐ com‐ plete. Re‐ search
Pro‐ vides minimal valid re‐ search. OR Sum‐ marizes results of re‐ search without placing in con‐
https://ntcmn.learn.minnstate.edu/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_…t_files.d2l?db=15566724&grpid=0&isprv=0&bp=0&ou=7685811 9/21/26, 8:58 PM Page 7 of 12
Re-
vi
e
w
o
f
Lit-
er-
a
t
u
r
e
Ex-
amin-
in
g
t
h
e
In-
ter-
ven-
ti
o
n
practice. Clearly presents advan‐ tages & disad‐ van‐ tages for both the current and rival practice. Analysis leads to a de‐ finitive stance on rec‐ ommen‐ dations for best practice. Analysis is well- support‐ ed by refer‐ ences from lit‐ erature. Provides statisti‐ cal infor‐ mation to sup‐ port conclu‐ sions.
Presents some advan‐ tages or disad‐ van‐ tages for both the current and rival practice. Analysis alludes to rec‐ ommen‐ dations for best practice but is not de‐ finitive. Most state‐ ments are sup‐ ported by refer‐ ences from lit‐ erature. Provides statisti‐ cal infor‐ mation to sup‐ port some but not all con‐ clu‐ sions.
tages or disad‐ van‐ tages for various interven‐ tions. Makes general recom‐ menda‐ tions for best practice but is based on opin‐ ion. Some state‐ ments are sup‐ ported by refer‐ ences from lit‐ erature. Provides occa‐ sional statisti‐ cal infor‐ mation to sup‐ port conclu‐ sion.
is only relevant for some aspects of analysis OR Find‐ ings are not clearly articu‐ lated. The re‐ lation‐ ship be‐ tween re‐ search & prac‐ tice is unclear or inac‐ curate, major errors in logic are present. Position is vague. Advan‐ tages & disad‐ van‐ tages are not clearly defined. Little or no sup‐ porting evi‐ dence provid‐ ed to
text of inter‐ vention analysis No clear analysis of ad‐ van‐ tages & disad‐ van‐ tages Unable to artic‐ ulate an evi‐ dence- based position Majority of con‐ tent is unsub‐ stantiat‐ ed opin‐ ion.
https://ntcmn.learn.minnstate.edu/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_…t_files.d2l?db=15566724&grpid=0&isprv=0&bp=0&ou=7685811 9/21/26, 8:58 PM Page 8 of 12
Pre-
sen-
t
a
ti
o
n
/ 10
support conclu‐ sions.
Dis‐ tributes evalua‐ tion forms to those in atten‐ dance. Chooses an effec‐ tive, en‐ gaging method of pre‐ senting findings and con‐ clusions. States how top‐ ic area was chosen and its rele‐ vance to nursing practice. Present a clear, concise summa‐ ry of all required ele‐ ments of the pa‐ per: his‐ tory, analysis of prac‐ tice sup‐ ported by re‐ search, discus‐
Dis‐ tributes evalua‐ tion forms to those in atten‐ dance. Chooses a logical method of pre‐ senting findings & con‐ clusions. States why top‐ ic area was chosen without clearly stating its rele‐ vance to nursing practice. Summa‐ rizes most of the re‐ quired ele‐ ments of the pa‐ per: his‐ tory, analysis of prac‐ tice sup‐ ported by re‐ search, discus‐ sion of
• Needs re‐ minder to dis‐ tribute evalua‐ tion forms. • Chooses less than optimal method of pre‐ senting findings & conclusions.
Vaguely states why top‐ ic area was chosen without stating its rele‐ vance to nursing practice.
• Summarizes some of the re‐ quired elements of the paper: history, analysis of practice sup‐ ported by re‐ search, discus‐ sion of barriers, and potential solutions for overcoming barriers. • Conclusion did not include a summary of presentation. • No clear rec‐ ommendation to change or continue cur‐ rent nursing practice as a result of the re‐ search process.
Needs re‐ minder to dis‐ tribute evalua‐ tion forms. Minimal evi‐ dence of prepa‐ ration for pre‐ senta‐ tion. Fails to state why topic area is impor‐ tant to nursing. The presen‐ tation is not logi‐ cally orga‐ nized and ad‐ dresses only one of the re‐ quired ele‐ ments. Mini‐ mal conclu‐ sion Recom‐ menda‐
No evalua‐ tion forms dis‐ trib‐ uted. No prepa‐ ration for pre‐ senta‐ tion evi‐ dent. Fails to state why topic area was chosen. Begins with a disorga‐ nized discus‐ sion of inter‐ ven‐ tions ex‐ plored. Pro‐ vides no sub‐ stantiat‐ ing evi‐ dence for con‐ clu‐ sions. Makes no rec‐ om‐ menda‐ tions for
https://ntcmn.learn.minnstate.edu/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_…t_files.d2l?db=15566724&grpid=0&isprv=0&bp=0&ou=7685811 9/21/26, 8:58 PM Page 9 of 12
sion of barriers, and po‐ tential solu‐ tions for over‐ coming barriers. Provides compre‐ hensive, concise summa‐ ry to con‐ clude the pre‐ senta‐ tion. Makes a clear, logical practice recom‐ menda‐ tion to change or con‐ tinue current nursing practice as a re‐ sult of the re‐ search process. Presents substan‐ tiating evi‐ dence through‐ out pre‐ senta‐ tion. Presen‐ tation
barriers, and po‐ tential solu‐ tions for over‐ coming barriers. Provides a brief summa‐ ry to con‐ clude the pre‐ senta‐ tion. Makes a vague recom‐ menda‐ tion to change or con‐ tinue current nursing practice as a re‐ sult of the re‐ search process. Often presents substan‐ tiating evi‐ dence. Presen‐ tation is 13-14 minutes or goes over 20 minutes. Con‐ ducts presen‐
• Occasionally presents sub‐ stantiating evi‐ dence.
Presen‐ tation is 11-13 minutes. Anxiety at times detracts from presen‐ tation.
tion for practice is con‐ trary to the in‐ forma‐ tion pre‐ sented. Minimal evi‐ dence provid‐ ed for conclu‐ sions or infor‐ mation shared. Presen‐ tation is 9-11 min‐ utes. Anxiety at times detracts from presen‐ tation.
prac‐ tice. No sub‐ stantive conclu‐ sion present, “That’s all I have” or “I’m done.” Presen‐ tation is less than 9 min‐ utes. Ex‐ treme anxiety pre‐ vents logical presen‐ tation of data.
https://ntcmn.learn.minnstate.edu/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_…t_files.d2l?db=15566724&grpid=0&isprv=0&bp=0&ou=7685811 9/21/26, 8:58 PM Page 10 of 12
meets 15–20- minute time stan‐ dard. Con‐ ducts presen‐ tation in a pro‐ fession‐ al, poised manner.
tation in a rela‐ tively poised manner, with some anxiety present.
Eval- ua- tio n
Level 5 9–10 points
Level 4 7–8 points
Level 3 5–6 points
Level 2 3–4 points
Level 1 0–2 points
Criterion Score
Eval-
ua-
t
i
o
n
/ 10Identifies at least two things to change if given the opportu‐ nity to present informa‐ tion again. Provides a thor‐ ough dis‐ cussion of strengths, weak‐ nesses and ar‐ eas for improve‐ ment of the pre‐ sentation based on audience
Identifies at least one thing to change if given the op‐ portunity to present informa‐ tion again. Provides a discus‐ sion of some strengths, weak‐ nesses and ar‐ eas for improve‐ ment of the pre‐ sentation based on audience evalua‐
Vaguely states one thing that could be changed if pre‐ sented again. A some‐ what ac‐ curate summary of a few strengths, weak‐ nesses or areas for improve‐ ment. Self-eval‐ uation does not include accurate summary of audi‐ ence
Provides incom‐ plete evalua‐ tion- fail‐ ing to ei‐ ther State one thing that could be changed, or Provide a summary of strengths, weak‐ nesses, and ar‐ eas for improve‐ ment, or Self-eval‐ uation shows little cor‐ relation to faculty
Fails to com‐ plete evalu‐ ation of pre‐ sen‐ tation.
https://ntcmn.learn.minnstate.edu/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_…t_files.d2l?db=15566724&grpid=0&isprv=0&bp=0&ou=7685811 9/21/26, 8:58 PM Page 11 of 12
Total / 50
Overall Score
evalua‐ tion forms Provides an accu‐ rate self- evalua‐ tion based on personal insight and audi‐ ence feedback with close correla‐ tion to faculty evalua‐ tion.
tion forms. Provides a self- evalua‐ tion based on audience feedback with some correla‐ tion to faculty evalua‐ tion.
feedback from evalua‐ tion forms with sig‐ nificant diver‐ gence from fac‐ ulty eval‐ uation. Self-eval‐ uation consis‐ tently over- or under- estimates perfor‐ mance.
evalua‐ tion- ei‐ ther grossly over- or under- estimates perfor‐ mance.
Level 5 34 points minimum
Level 4 27 points minimum
Level 3 20 points minimum
Level 2 13 points minimum
Level 1 0 points minimum
https://ntcmn.learn.minnstate.edu/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_…t_files.d2l?db=15566724&grpid=0&isprv=0&bp=0&ou=7685811 9/21/26, 8:58 PM Page 12 of 12