| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| NUR-550 | NUR-550-O500 | Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal: Research Design Comparison | 100.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less Than Satisfactory (80.00%) | Satisfactory (88.00%) | Good (92.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 100.0% |
| Nursing Practice Problem (Revision) | 10.0% | The nursing practice problem was not included, or the required revisions were not made. | The changes failed to meet the criteria for a relevant nursing practice problem for an evidence-based practice project proposal. Additional revisions are still required for approval. | Revisions were made accordingly to improve the proposed nursing practice problem, but some aspects are inaccurate or unclear. Additional revisions are still required for approval. | NA | The nursing practice problem is clearly presented and approved. No revision was required, or all necessary revisions are were made. |
| Translational and Traditional Articles | 15.0% | More than two articles selected do not meet the assignment criteria. At least one article is omitted. | Two articles do not meet the assignment criteria. It is unclear how one or two of the articles support the proposed nursing practice problem. | One article does not meet the assignment criteria. Overall, the articles generally support the proposed nursing practice problem. The proposed problem would be better supported with the selection of one or two different articles. | The articles meet the assignment criteria and provide adequate support for the proposed nursing practice problem. | A quantitative article and a qualitative article were each compared to a translational research article. The articles are peer-reviewed, published within the last five years, and pertain to the nursing practice problem. The assignment criteria are fully met. |
| Comparison of Methodology Between Translational and Traditional Research
| 15.0% | The comparison between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative methodologies is omitted. | The comparison between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative methodologies is incomplete. There are significant inaccuracies. | A summary comparison between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative methodologies is presented. Some aspects are incorrect or unclear. | The comparison between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative methodologies is adequately presented. Some aspects require more detail for accuracy or clarity. | The comparison between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative methodologies is thorough and accurate. A clear understanding of translational and traditional methodologies is demonstrated. |
| Comparison of Goals Between Translational and Traditional Research | 15.0% | The comparison of goals between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative research is omitted. | The comparison of goals between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative research is incomplete. There are significant inaccuracies. | A summary comparison of goals between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative research is presented. Some aspects are incorrect or unclear. | A comparison of goals between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative research is adequately presented. Some aspects require more detail for accuracy or clarity. | The comparison of goals between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative research is thorough and accurate. An understanding of goals between traditional and translational research is evident. |
| Comparison of Data Collection Between Translational and Traditional Research | 15.0% | The comparison of data collection between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative research is omitted. | The comparison of data collection between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative research is incomplete. There are significant inaccuracies. | A summary comparison of data collection between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative research is presented. Some aspects are incorrect or unclear. | The comparison of data collection between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative research is adequately presented. Some aspects require more detail for accuracy or clarity. | The comparison of data collection between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative research is thorough and accurate. An understanding of goals between traditional and translational research is evident. |
| Observations (Similarities and Differences) | 20.0% | The similarities and differences between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative research are not discussed. | The similarities and differences between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative research are only partially discussed. The narrative is vague and contains inaccuracies. | The similarities and differences between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative research are summarized. More information is needed. There are minor inaccuracies. | The similarities and differences between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative research are presented. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy | The similarities and differences between translational and quantitative and translational and qualitative research are detailed and informative. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) | 5.0% | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. | The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 5.0% | Sources are not documented. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
Dtjemrxypyt
Rubric_Print_Format-2.xlsx
