Research Critiques and PICOT Statement Final Draft

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

Criteria Percentage Content 75.0%

Quan?ta?ve Studies 5.0%

Background of Study 10.0%

Ar?cle Support of Nursing Prac?ce 15.0%

Method of Study 15.0%

Results of Study 15.0%

An?cipated Outcomes and Outcomes Comparison 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 DraX Quan?ta?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 quan?ta?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.

An?cipated outcomes for the PICOT are omi_ed or are unrealis?c. Comparison of research ar?cle outcomes to an?cipated outcomes 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 quan?ta?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 is 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.

An?cipated outcomes for the PICOT are par?ally summarized. Comparison of research ar?cle outcomes to an?cipated outcomes contains omissions of key informa?on. It is unclear how the an?cipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research men?oned compare.

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.

An?cipated outcomes for the PICOT are summarized. Comparison of research ar?cle outcomes to an?cipated outcomes is generally presented. More informa?on is needed to fully establish how the an?cipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research men?oned compare.

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.

An?cipated outcomes for the PICOT are discussed. A comparison of research ar?cle outcomes to an?cipated outcomes of the PICOT is presented. An explana?on of how the an?cipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research men?oned compare is presented. Some detail is needed for 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

: Excellent (100.00%) Comments

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

Pedro, your second ar?cle is not valid/ acceptable as it was published in 2014. All sources for this class are to be no older than 2016. This was published in class announcement and would have been discussed in your literature table assignment.

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. Good background of both studies.

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 provide your PICOT in its full en?rety to be able to ?e back the two ar?cles to it. I do not see your PICOT ques?on stated.

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.

Random effect is not an appropriate research method and is stated incorrectly. You captured the correct method for the first ar?cle.

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, when you are discussing quan?ta?ve ar?cles, you need to provide numerical data as that is the type of data that is being collected. While you discussed the findings, you did not actually present any numerical data.

An?cipated outcomes for the PICOT are thoroughly discussed. A detailed comparison of research ar?cle outcomes to the an?cipated outcomes of the PICOT is presented. An explana?on of how the an?cipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research men?oned compare is presented in detail. Well done

11

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

Pedro, where is the introduc?on into this paper? You needed to start off with an intro into the clinical issue... and lead us into the why of the paper... your paper began with the background of the studies.

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.

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

12

Points Earned

7.12/9.50

19.00/19.00

0.00/28.50

26.79/28.50

0.00/28.50

28.50/28.50

13

0.00/9.50

9.50/9.50

9.50/9.50

9.50/9.50

9.50/9.50

119.41/190.0

14