Research Critiques and PICOT Statement Final Draft

Course Code Class Code NRS-433V NRS-433V-O504

Criteria Percentage Content 75.0%

Qualita?ve Studies 5.0%

Background of Study 10.0%

Ar?cle Support of Nursing Prac?ce Issue 15.0%

Method of Study 15.0%

Results of Study 15.0%

Ethical Considera?ons 15.0%

Organiza?on and Effec?veness 15.0%

1

Thesis Development and Purpose 5.0%

Argument Logic and Construc?on 5.0%

Mechanics of Wri?ng (includes spelling, punctua?on, grammar, language use) 5.0%

Format 10.0%

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5.0%

Documenta?on of Sources (cita?ons, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0%

Total Weightage 100%

2

Assignment Title Rough DraY Qualita?ve Research Cri?que and Ethical Considera?ons

1: Unsa?sfactory (0.00%)

Only one ar?cle is presented. Neither of the ar?cles presented use qualita?ve research.

Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objec?ve, and research ques?ons, is incomplete.

Discussion on how ar?cles support the PICOT ques?on is incomplete.

Discussion on the method of study for each ar?cle is omi_ed. The comparison of study methods is omi_ed or incomplete.

Discussion of study results, including findings and implica?ons for nursing prac?ce, is incomplete.

Discussion of ethical considera?ons when conduc?ng nursing research is incomplete. A discussion on ethical considera?ons of the two ar?cles presented in the essay is incomplete.

3

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Statement of purpose is not jus?fied by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communica?on of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construc?on is used.

Template is not used appropriately or documenta?on format is rarely followed correctly.

Sources are not documented.

4

Total Points 190.0

2: Less Than Sa?sfactory (75.00%)

Two ar?cles are presented. Of the ar?cles presented, only one ar?cle is based on qualita?ve research.

Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objec?ve, and research ques?ons, is included but lacks relevant details and explana?on.

A summary of how ar?cles support the PICOT ques?on is presented. It is unclear how the ar?cles can be used to answer the proposed PICOT ques?on. Significant informa?on and detail are required.

A par?al summary of the method of study for each ar?cle is presented. The comparison of study methods is incomplete. A benefit and a limita?on of each method are omi_ed or incomplete. There are significant inaccuracies.

A summary of the study results includes findings and implica?ons for nursing prac?ce but lacks relevant details and explana?on. There are some omissions or inaccuracies.

Discussion of ethical considera?ons when conduc?ng nursing research is included but lacks relevant details and explana?on. A discussion on ethical considera?ons of the two ar?cles used in the essay is summarized but there are significant inaccuracies or omissions.

5

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

Sufficient jus?fica?on of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have ques?onable credibility.

Frequent and repe??ve mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.

Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formafng is apparent.

Documenta?on of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formafng errors.

6

3: Sa?sfactory (83.00%)

N/A

Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objec?ve, and research ques?ons, is par?ally complete and includes some relevant details and explana?on.

A general discussion on how ar?cles support the PICOT ques?on is presented. The ar?cles demonstrate general support in answering the proposed PICOT ques?on. It is unclear how the interven?ons and comparison groups in the ar?cles compare to those iden?fied in the PICOT ques?on. Some ra?onal or informa?on is needed.

A general discussion on the method of study for each ar?cle is presented. The comparison of study methods is summarized. A benefit and a limita?on of each method are summarized. There some inaccuracies or par?al omissions. More informa?on is needed.

Discussion of study results, including findings and implica?ons for nursing prac?ce, is generally presented. Overall, the discussion includes some relevant details and explana?on.

Discussion of ethical considera?ons when conduc?ng nursing research is par?ally complete and includes some relevant details and explana?on. A discussion on ethical considera?ons of the two ar?cles used in the essay is discussed but there are some inaccuracies, or some informa?on is needed.

7

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal jus?fica?on of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduc?on and conclusion bracket the thesis.

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distrac?ng to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.

Template is used, and formafng is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formafng errors may be present.

8

4: Good (94.00%)

N/A

Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objec?ve, and research ques?ons, is complete and includes relevant details and explana?on.

A discussion on how ar?cles support the PICOT ques?on is presented. The ar?cles demonstrate support in answering the proposed PICOT ques?on. The interven?ons and comparison groups in the ar?cles compare to those iden?fied in the PICOT ques?on. Minor detail or ra?onal is needed for clarity or support.

A discussion on the method of study for each ar?cle is presented. The comparison of study methods is generally described. A benefit and a limita?on of each method are presented. There minor are inaccuracies. Some detail is required for accuracy or clarity.

Discussion of study results, including findings and implica?ons for nursing prac?ce, is complete and includes relevant details and explana?on.

Discussion of ethical considera?ons when conduc?ng nursing research is complete and includes relevant details and explana?on. A discussion on ethical considera?ons of the two ar?cles used in the essay is presented; some detail in needed for accuracy or clarity.

9

Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descrip?ve and reflec?ve of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumenta?on are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduc?on to conclusion. Most sources are authorita?ve.

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effec?ve figures of speech are used.

Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formafng style.

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

10

5: Excellent (100.00%) Comments

Two ar?cles are presented. Both ar?cles are based on qualita?ve research.

Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objec?ve, and research ques?ons, is thorough with substan?al relevant details and extensive explana?on. Well done

A clear discussion on how ar?cles support the PICOT ques?on is presented. The ar?cles demonstrate strong support in answering the proposed PICOT ques?on. The interven?ons and comparison groups in the ar?cles strongly compare to those iden?fied in the PICOT ques?on.

Pedro: where is your PICOT ques?on? You needed to clearly state your PICOT in order to be able to ?e back the research ar?cles to it... I do not see your ques?on at all.

A thorough discussion on the method of study for each ar?cle is presented. The comparison of study methods is described in detail. A benefit and a limita?on of each method are presented. The discussion demonstrates a solid understanding of research methods.

You discussed the sampling technique and also the actual study tools: not the actual research methods that were employed. Qualita?ve always applies to the type of data being sought out.

Discussion of study results, including findings and implica?ons for nursing prac?ce, is thorough with substan?al relevant details and extensive explana?on.

Pedro: for these types of studies you are wan?ng to provide the key themes iden?fied: you are not providing numerical data.. only key themes for qualita?ve studies. Quan?ta?ve studies require numerical data. You gave basic results but also numerical

Discussion of ethical considera?ons associated with the conduct of nursing research is thorough with substan?al relevant details and extensive explana?on. A detailed discussion on ethical considera?ons of the two ar?cles used in the essay is presented.

You needed to give two ethical considera?ons that were taken into account for each study. You gave one for each.

11

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

Pedro, you did not begin this paper with an introduc?on to the clinical issue, the overall why of this paper, leading the reader into the purpose. You jumped right into the background of the ar?cles.

Argument is clear and convincing and presents a persuasive claim in a dis?nc?ve and compelling manner. All sources are authorita?ve.

Writer is clearly in command of standard, wri_en, academic English.

All format elements are correct.

You were to use the headers and put the ar?cle informa?on grouped underneath each header: wri?ng solid fluid paragraphs for both together.

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. Very good.

12

Points Earned

9.50/9.50

19.00/19.00

21.38/28.50

21.38/28.50

23.66/28.50

23.66/28.50

13

0.00/9.50

9.50/9.50

9.50/9.50

7.88/9.50

0.00/9.50

145.44/190.0

14