| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| NUR-550 | NUR-550-O500 | Evidence-Based Practice Project: Evaluation of Literature Table | 150.0 |
| 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% |
| PICOT | 5.0% | The PICOT is omitted. | NA | NA | NA | The PICOT is clearly and accurately presented. |
| Articles | 10.0% | Required number of sources are not included. Article citations and permalinks are omitted. | Number of required sources is only partially met. Article citations and permalinks are presented. One or more links do not lead to the intended article. | Number of required sources is met, but some sources are outdated or inappropriate. Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are presented, but there are errors. | Sources are current and generally appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are presented, but there are minor errors. | Sources are current and highly appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are accurate. |
| Research Question, Hypothesis, Purpose or Aim of Study | 10.0% | Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for one or more articles is omitted. | Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for each article is presented, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout. | Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for each article is presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies. | Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for each article is adequately presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. | A discussion on the research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study is thoroughly and accurately presented for each article. |
| Study Design | 10.0% | The study design for one or more article is omitted. | The study design for each article is presented, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout. | The study design is indicated for each article. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies. | The study design is adequately presented for each article. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. | A thorough and accurate discussion on the study design for each article is presented. |
| Setting and Sample | 10.0% | The setting and sample are omitted for one or more of the articles. | The setting and sample are indicated for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout. | The setting and sample are indicated for each article. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies. | The setting and sample are adequately presented for each article. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. | The setting and sample in which the researcher conducted the study are detailed and accurate for each article. |
| Methods | 10.0% | Method of study for one or more articles is omitted. Overall, the methods of study are incomplete. | The method of study is presented for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout. | The method of study for each article is presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies | An adequate discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. | A thorough and accurate discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. |
| Analysis and Data Collection | 10.0% | Analysis and data collection for one or more articles is omitted. Overall, the analysis and data collection are incomplete. | Analysis and data collection are presented for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout. | Analysis and data collection for each article are presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies. | An adequate discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. | A thorough and accurate discussion on the analysis and data collection for each article is presented. |
| Outcomes and Key Findings | 10.0% | Outcomes and key findings for one or more articles are omitted. Overall, the outcomes and key findings are incomplete. | Outcomes and key findings are presented for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout. | Outcomes and key findings for each article are presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies. | An adequate discussion on outcomes and key findings for each article are presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. | A thorough and accurate discussion on the outcomes and key findings collection for each article are presented. |
| Recommendations | 10.0% | Researcher recommendations are omitted for one or more of the articles. The recommendations described for three or more articles are inaccurate or incomplete. | Researcher recommendations are indicated for each article. The researcher recommendations described for two of the articles are inaccurate or incomplete. | Researcher recommendations for each article are presented. Researcher recommendations described for one article are inaccurate or incomplete. | Researcher recommendations for each article are accurately presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. | Researcher recommendations are accurately and thoroughly described for each article. |
| Explanation of How Articles Support Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal | 10.0% | An explanation of how the article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is omitted for one or more of the articles. The explanation for three or more articles is inaccurate or incomplete. | An explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. The explanation for two of the articles is inaccurate or incomplete. | A general explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. The explanation for one article is inaccurate or incomplete. Support for the evidence-based project proposal is generally evident. | An explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. Adequate support for the evidence-based project proposal is demonstrated. | A detailed explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. Support for the evidence-based project proposal is clearly evident. |
| 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. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
Dtjemrxypyt
Rubric_Print_Format-5.xlsx
