Research in Nursing
Miss Cookie
RubricDetailResearchinNursingWk6.htmlRubric Detail
A rubric lists grading criteria that instructors use to evaluate student work. Your instructor linked a rubric to this item and made it available to you. Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Content
Name: NURS350-Literature Review with Rapid Critical Appraisal Checklists
| Meets or Exceeds Expectations | Mostly Meets Expectations | Below Expectations | Does Not Meet Expectations | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Two substantive research articles (one qualitative and one quantitative) are clearly identified as original research studies. | Points: Points Range: 9 (4.50%) - 10 (5.00%) Two quality, substantive articles (one qualitative and one quantitative) are selected and are suitable original research studies. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 7.6 (3.80%) - 8.9 (4.45%) Two articles (one qualitative and one quantitative) are selected and are mostly substantive, but at least one is not a suitable original research study, or is not sufficiently substantive. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 6 (3.00%) - 7.5 (3.75%) One article is selected and identified as qualitative or quantitative research, or it is not a suitable original research study. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 5.9 (2.95%) Articles are not original research; one qualitative and one quantitative article are not identified. Feedback: |
| Description of the research problem and purpose of each research article | Points: Points Range: 36 (18.00%) - 40 (20.00%) The research problem and the purpose for each article are expertly examined. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 30.4 (15.20%) - 35.6 (17.80%) The research problem and the purpose for each article are adequately examined with minor omissions or errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 24 (12.00%) - 30 (15.00%) The research problem and the purpose for each article are vague, absent or not identified, and contain major omissions or errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 23.6 (11.80%) The research problem and its purpose are not identified for any of the articles. Feedback: |
| Description of the research methods for each research article | Points: Points Range: 27 (13.50%) - 30 (15.00%) An extensive description of the variables, the sample, and the research methods is clearly presented for each article. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 22.8 (11.40%) - 26.7 (13.35%) An adequate description of the, variables, the sample, and the research methods is presented for most articles with minor omissions or errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 18 (9.00%) - 22.5 (11.25%) An unsatisfactory description of the variables, sample, and the research methods is presented for both articles with major omissions or errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 17.7 (8.85%) A description of the variables, the sample, and the research methods is not presented for any of the articles. Feedback: |
| Summary of the findings/conclusions/themes for each research article | Points: Points Range: 36 (18.00%) - 40 (20.00%) An expertly examined investigation of the findings, themes, and conclusions for both articles is skillfully presented for each article. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 30.4 (15.20%) - 35.6 (17.80%) An adequate investigation of the findings, themes, and conclusions for both is satisfactorily presented with minor omissions or errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 24 (12.00%) - 30 (15.00%) An unsatisfactory investigation of the findings, themes, and conclusions for both articles is provided with major omissions or errors, or only one of the articles is investigated and presented satisfactorily. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 23.6 (11.80%) A description of the findings, themes, and conclusions, is not presented for either article. Feedback: |
| Description of the similarities and differences among the research articles | Points: Points Range: 54 (27.00%) - 60 (30.00%) The description of the similarities and differences among the research articles is clear and thorough. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 45.6 (22.80%) - 53.4 (26.70%) The description of the similarities and differences among the research articles is adequate with minor omissions or errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 36 (18.00%) - 45 (22.50%) The description of the similarities and differences among the research articles is inadequate with major omissions or errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 35.4 (17.70%) The description of the similarities and differences among the research articles is not provided. Feedback: |
| APA | Points: Points Range: 9 (4.50%) - 10 (5.00%) Uses APA Style accurately and consistently to cite sources with only 1–2 errors. Sources are expertly cited and are peer-reviewed, relevant sources. Meets all formatting requirements (length and style) of the assignment. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 7.6 (3.80%) - 8.9 (4.45%) Uses APA Style with minor citation violations with 3–4 errors. Sources are somewhat relevant, but may be limited in scholarly nature. Meets most formatting requirements (length and style) of the assignment. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 6 (3.00%) - 7.5 (3.75%) Reflects incomplete knowledge of APA Style with 5–6 errors. Sources are not cited, or there are many errors. Sources are not scholarly in nature. Meets most formatting requirements (length and style) of the assignment. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 5.9 (2.95%) Does not use APA Style, or there are pervasive errors throughout the paper. Does not meet formatting requirements (length and style) of the assignment. Feedback: |
| Mechanics | Points: Points Range: 9 (4.50%) - 10 (5.00%) The writing demonstrates a sophisticated clarity, conciseness, and correctness; includes thorough details and information; and is extremely well organized. Punctuation, spelling, and capitalization are all correct. There are minimal to no errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 7.6 (3.80%) - 8.9 (4.45%) The writing is accomplished in terms of clarity and conciseness, includes sufficient details, and is well organized, but it may contain a few errors. Punctuation, spelling, and capitalization are generally correct with not many errors. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 6 (3.00%) - 7.5 (3.75%) The writing lacks clarity or conciseness, contains numerous errors, and lacks organization. Errors in punctuation, spelling, and capitalization detract from the readability of the paper Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 5.9 (2.95%) The writing is unfocused, rambling, or contains serious errors; lacks detail and relevant data and information; and is poorly organized. There are many distracting errors in punctuation, spelling, and capitalization. Feedback: |
Two substantive research articles (one qualitative and one quantitative) are clearly identified as original research studies.--
Levels of Achievement: Meets or Exceeds Expectations 9 (4.50%) - 10 (5.00%) Two quality, substantive articles (one qualitative and one quantitative) are selected and are suitable original research studies. Mostly Meets Expectations 7.6 (3.80%) - 8.9 (4.45%) Two articles (one qualitative and one quantitative) are selected and are mostly substantive, but at least one is not a suitable original research study, or is not sufficiently substantive. Below Expectations 6 (3.00%) - 7.5 (3.75%) One article is selected and identified as qualitative or quantitative research, or it is not a suitable original research study. Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0.00%) - 5.9 (2.95%) Articles are not original research; one qualitative and one quantitative article are not identified. Feedback:Description of the research problem and purpose of each research article--
Levels of Achievement: Meets or Exceeds Expectations 36 (18.00%) - 40 (20.00%) The research problem and the purpose for each article are expertly examined. Mostly Meets Expectations 30.4 (15.20%) - 35.6 (17.80%) The research problem and the purpose for each article are adequately examined with minor omissions or errors. Below Expectations 24 (12.00%) - 30 (15.00%) The research problem and the purpose for each article are vague, absent or not identified, and contain major omissions or errors. Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0.00%) - 23.6 (11.80%) The research problem and its purpose are not identified for any of the articles. Feedback:Description of the research methods for each research article--
Levels of Achievement: Meets or Exceeds Expectations 27 (13.50%) - 30 (15.00%) An extensive description of the variables, the sample, and the research methods is clearly presented for each article. Mostly Meets Expectations 22.8 (11.40%) - 26.7 (13.35%) An adequate description of the, variables, the sample, and the research methods is presented for most articles with minor omissions or errors. Below Expectations 18 (9.00%) - 22.5 (11.25%) An unsatisfactory description of the variables, sample, and the research methods is presented for both articles with major omissions or errors. Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0.00%) - 17.7 (8.85%) A description of the variables, the sample, and the research methods is not presented for any of the articles. Feedback:Summary of the findings/conclusions/themes for each research article--
Levels of Achievement: Meets or Exceeds Expectations 36 (18.00%) - 40 (20.00%) An expertly examined investigation of the findings, themes, and conclusions for both articles is skillfully presented for each article. Mostly Meets Expectations 30.4 (15.20%) - 35.6 (17.80%) An adequate investigation of the findings, themes, and conclusions for both is satisfactorily presented with minor omissions or errors. Below Expectations 24 (12.00%) - 30 (15.00%) An unsatisfactory investigation of the findings, themes, and conclusions for both articles is provided with major omissions or errors, or only one of the articles is investigated and presented satisfactorily. Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0.00%) - 23.6 (11.80%) A description of the findings, themes, and conclusions, is not presented for either article. Feedback:Description of the similarities and differences among the research articles--
Levels of Achievement: Meets or Exceeds Expectations 54 (27.00%) - 60 (30.00%) The description of the similarities and differences among the research articles is clear and thorough. Mostly Meets Expectations 45.6 (22.80%) - 53.4 (26.70%) The description of the similarities and differences among the research articles is adequate with minor omissions or errors. Below Expectations 36 (18.00%) - 45 (22.50%) The description of the similarities and differences among the research articles is inadequate with major omissions or errors. Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0.00%) - 35.4 (17.70%) The description of the similarities and differences among the research articles is not provided. Feedback:APA--
Levels of Achievement: Meets or Exceeds Expectations 9 (4.50%) - 10 (5.00%) Uses APA Style accurately and consistently to cite sources with only 1–2 errors. Sources are expertly cited and are peer-reviewed, relevant sources. Meets all formatting requirements (length and style) of the assignment. Mostly Meets Expectations 7.6 (3.80%) - 8.9 (4.45%) Uses APA Style with minor citation violations with 3–4 errors. Sources are somewhat relevant, but may be limited in scholarly nature. Meets most formatting requirements (length and style) of the assignment. Below Expectations 6 (3.00%) - 7.5 (3.75%) Reflects incomplete knowledge of APA Style with 5–6 errors. Sources are not cited, or there are many errors. Sources are not scholarly in nature. Meets most formatting requirements (length and style) of the assignment. Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0.00%) - 5.9 (2.95%) Does not use APA Style, or there are pervasive errors throughout the paper. Does not meet formatting requirements (length and style) of the assignment. Feedback:Mechanics--
Levels of Achievement: Meets or Exceeds Expectations 9 (4.50%) - 10 (5.00%) The writing demonstrates a sophisticated clarity, conciseness, and correctness; includes thorough details and information; and is extremely well organized. Punctuation, spelling, and capitalization are all correct. There are minimal to no errors. Mostly Meets Expectations 7.6 (3.80%) - 8.9 (4.45%) The writing is accomplished in terms of clarity and conciseness, includes sufficient details, and is well organized, but it may contain a few errors. Punctuation, spelling, and capitalization are generally correct with not many errors. Below Expectations 6 (3.00%) - 7.5 (3.75%) The writing lacks clarity or conciseness, contains numerous errors, and lacks organization. Errors in punctuation, spelling, and capitalization detract from the readability of the paper Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0.00%) - 5.9 (2.95%) The writing is unfocused, rambling, or contains serious errors; lacks detail and relevant data and information; and is poorly organized. There are many distracting errors in punctuation, spelling, and capitalization. Feedback:Name:NURS350-Literature Review with Rapid Critical Appraisal Checklists
