Nursing

Element

7.5 points

5 points

3.5 points

2 points

Source information and quality

(7.5 points)

All key elements are present: Author credentials listed, article is less than 5 years old, and publication is peer reviewed/

scholarly, article is based on research and relates to the chosen topic of concern; is a primary source

Two key elements are present: Author credentials listed, article is less than 5 years old, ad publication is peer reviewed/

scholarly, article is based on research and relates to the chosen topic of concern but is a secondary source

One key element is listed: Author credentials listed, article is less than 5 years old, ad publication is peer reviewed/

scholarly, the articles only partially relate to the chosen topic of concern or is a secondary source

Missing key elements: Author credentials listed, article is more than 5 years old, and publication is peer reviewed/

scholarly, the article has little or nothing to do with the topic of concern and is a secondary source. The article is not research.

Research Design and interventions described (.7.5 points)

See Polit/Beck pp. 18, 210), (pp. 17, 201 in 11th ed.)

All key elements are present: appropriate research design identified, thorough description of intervention, justification for not using a different research design, longitudinal or prospective, or causal intent. Identifies IV and DV if appropriate

Elements are covered but not in enough depth: appropriate research design identified, thorough description of intervention, justification for not using a different research design, longitudinal or prospective, or causal intent. Identifies IV and DV

Missing elements in this category- research design or intervention: appropriate research design identified, thorough description of intervention, justification for not using a different research design, longitudinal or prospective, or causal intent. Identifies IV and DV

Missing key elements: does not identify the correct research design, no description of the intervention (if present), does not identify IV or DV (if appropriate)

Level of Evidence and model used to grade evidence and Evaluation tool used (CASP or others) (7.5 points)

See Polit/Beck p. 35 (p. 36-37 in 11th ed)

Key elements addressed: What was the strength of the evidence in support of your research topic- what model was used to grade the evidence? What evaluation tool was used to assess the evidence?

Key elements are not well described but are present:

Strength of evidence, model used to grade the evidence and evaluation tool used.

Missing elements in this category: Includes some information but it missing content related to grading the evidence, model use or evaluation tool.

Does not include the level of evidence and model used to grade it. Does not use an evaluation tool to assess design

Sample/# of participants, how recruited, power analysis? Data Collection procedure (7.5 points)

See p. 263 in Polit/Beck (p. 274 in 11th Ed)

Key elements addressed: was population identified, were sample procedures described? What type sampling plan as used? How were people recruited? Was there a power analysis? Was sample size large enough? All elements thoroughly addressed.

Key elements are not well described but are present: was population identified, were sample procedures described? What type sampling plan as used? How were people recruited? Was there a power analysis? Was sample size large enough?

Missing or superficial information: was population identified, were sample procedures described? What type sampling plan as used? How were people recruited? Was there a power analysis? Was sample size large enough?

Does not include a discussion of the participants, how they were recruited, power analysis information, sample size adequacy. Limited information included.

Instruments and

Reliability/validity

of instruments (7.5 points)

See p. 325 in Polit/Beck (p. 336 in 11th Ed).

Key Elements addressed: includes a complete and thorough discussion of the instruments used, types of questions, reliability- (Cronbach alpha) and validity, LOM

Key elements are not well described but are present: includes some discussion of the instruments used, types of questions, reliability- (Cronbach alpha) and validity, LOM

Key elements are missing or are very superficial: includes a complete discussion of the instruments used, types of questions, reliability (Cronbach alpha) and validity, LOM

Does not include information concerning reliability or validity of instruments.

Data Analysis-

identify statistics,

LOM, findings,

Results (7.5

points)

See pp. 371, 399

in Polit

/Beck (pp. 381,

408 in 11th

Ed)

Key elements addressed thoroughly: Was level of measurement identified? Were inferential stats used? Were tests parametric or nonparametric- why used? Were there significant results? Was there an appropriate amount of statistics info reported? Were all important results discussed?

Key elements are not well described but are present:

Was level of measurement identified? Were inferential stats used? Were tests parametric or nonparametric- why used? Were there significant results? Was there an appropriate amount of statistics info reported? Were all important results discussed?

Key elements are missing or very superficial discussion: Was level of measurement identified? Were inferential stats used? Were tests parametric or nonparametric- why used? Were there significant results? Was there an appropriate amount of statistics info reported? Were all important results discussed?

Missing information from discussion of data analysis: does not identify statistics used, no LOM, findings or results

Discussion/

Significance of findings, Reliability and Validity of study, limitations (7.5 points)

See p. 457 in Polit/Beck (p. 465 in 11th ed)

Key elements addressed thoroughly: Was interpretation appropriate? Were limitations identified? Addressed study implications for clinical practice, did they make specific recommendations or miss important implications? Did research address clinical significance? Did they address generalizability?

Key elements are not well described but are present: interpretation, limitations, implications for clinical practice, clinical significance, generalizability

Key elements superficial : interpretation, limitations, implications for clinical practice, clinical significance, generalizability

Missing information regarding: interpretation, limitations, implications for clinical practice, clinical significance, generalizability

Analysis, Helpful/Reliable

Compared to other articles (7.5 points)

Key elements answered thoughtfully: is the information biased or objective, useful and reliable or not? How does the source compare with other reviewed articles? How is this information similar or different from other articles you have read?

Was the information helpful? How?

Key elements are not well described but are present: is the information biased or objective, useful and reliable or not? How does the source compare with other reviewed articles? How is this information similar or different from other articles you have read? Was the information helpful? How?

Key elements are present but superficial: is the information biased or objective, useful and reliable or not? How does the source compare with other reviewed articles? How is this information similar or different from other articles you have read? Was the information helpful? How?

Missing key elements: is the information biased or objective, useful and reliable or not? How does the source compare with other reviewed articles? How is this information similar or different from other articles you have read? Was the information helpful? How?

Summary

(20 points)

20 points

14 points

7.5 points

0 points

Summary

Overall Synthesis of all 5 research articles

Use Polit Box20.1, p. 457 as guide , (11th ed Box 21.1, p. 465) (20 points)

Key Elements:

Thorough and complete discussion about the quality of the articles (level of evidence), overall findings, what research still needs to be done on your topic, identifies gaps in care, addresses health promotion pertinent for area, analyzes interventions for populations. Did the article change your thinking about your research topic?

Discusses each article individually, with some evaluation of quality and needed research. Did the article change your thinking about your research topic? Addresses a gap in care of population, few health promotion or prevention issues, few interventions for population

Includes most of the articles, spotty evaluation of the articles, no research identified, limited discussion if view changed on the topic.

Limited analysis/summary with focus on gaps identified, health prevention/promotion or interventions

Does not include the summary of all 5 articles, no evaluation of quality of the articles, no needed research identified, limited discussion addressing gaps in care, health promotion/prevention or interventions. Did not address if view on topic has changed

SCHOLARLY WRITING

(20 points)

10 points (each category below is worth 10)

7.5 points

(each below are worth 7.5 pts in this category)

5 points

(each below are worth 5 pts in this category)

0 points

(each below are worth 0 pts in this category)

Writing quality (10 points)

No grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. Succinct

Almost no grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. Nearly succinct

A few grammatical spelling or punctuation errors.

Many grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. Too brief or not succinct

APA Format (10 points)

Source is consistently documented in APA format

Source is accurately documented but a few minor errors noted

Multiple errors in accuracy and APA format.

Sources are neither accurately documented nor in APA Format

TOTAL Points= 100