Research in Nursing

RubricDetailRNweek10.html

Home >Nursing homework help >Research in Nursing

Rubric 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-Research Critique

Description: This rubric is used to evaluate the Research Critique Assignment in NURS350.

	Meets or Exceeds Expectations	Mostly Meets Expectations	Below Expectations	Does Not Meet Expectations
Research Problem/Purpose	Points: Points Range: 25.2 (9.00%) - 28 (10.00%) Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are clearly identified. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 21.28 (7.60%) - 24.92 (8.90%) Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are somewhat identified. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 16.8 (6.00%) - 21 (7.50%) Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are mostly absent or misidentified. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 16.52 (5.90%) Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are absent. Feedback:
Review of the Literature	Points: Points Range: 37.8 (13.50%) - 42 (15.00%) Concepts explored in the literature review are clearly identified. Critique of the references is included and well developed. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 31.92 (11.40%) - 37.38 (13.35%) Concepts explored in the literature review are somewhat identified. Critique of the references is included, but may not be fully developed. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 25.2 (9.00%) - 31.5 (11.25%) Concepts explored in the literature review are misidentified. Critique of the references is severely lacking. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 24.78 (8.85%) Concepts explored in the literature review are absent. Critique of the references is absent. Feedback:
Theoretical Framework	Points: Points Range: 25.2 (9.00%) - 28 (10.00%) A theoretical concept/framework is identified and well analyzed for appropriateness. If the article lacks a concept/framework, a suitable one is suggested. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 21.28 (7.60%) - 24.92 (8.90%) A theoretical concept/framework is somewhat identified and analyzed for appropriateness. If the article lacks a concept/framework, a potential concept/framework is suggested, but it is somewhat inappropriate. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 16.8 (6.00%) - 21 (7.50%) A theoretical concept/framework is somewhat identified and analyzed for appropriateness. If the article lacks a concept/framework, a potential concept/framework is suggested, is not identified or is grossly inappropriate. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 16.52 (5.90%) A theoretical concept/framework is misidentified or not analyzed for appropriateness. Feedback:
Variables, Hypotheses, Questions, and Assumptions	Points: Points Range: 12.6 (4.50%) - 14 (5.00%) IV and DV are identified and defined. Discussion on measurability is included. Research question and hypothesis are identified. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 10.64 (3.80%) - 12.46 (4.45%) IV and DV are somewhat identified and or partially defined. Discussion on measurability is somewhat included. Research question and hypothesis are partially identified. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 8.4 (3.00%) - 10.5 (3.75%) IV and DV identification and definition are absent or severely lacking. Discussion on measurability is absent or inaccurate. Research question and hypothesis are not identified or grossly misidentified. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 8.26 (2.95%) IV and DV identification and definition are absent. Discussion on measurability is absent. Research question and hypothesis are not identified. Feedback:
Methodology	Points: Points Range: 50.4 (18.00%) - 56 (20.00%) Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling method, and type of reasoning are properly identified. Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are discussed. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 42.56 (15.20%) - 49.84 (17.80%) Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling method, and type of reasoning are somewhat identified. Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are discussed, but some information is inaccurate. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 33.6 (12.00%) - 42 (15.00%) Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling method, and type of reasoning are absent or misidentified. Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are either absent or grossly inaccurate. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 33.04 (11.80%) Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling method, and type of reasoning are absent. Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are absent. Feedback:
Data Analysis	Points: Points Range: 37.8 (13.50%) - 42 (15.00%) Data analysis tool is identified. An explanation on how the results are presented in the study is included and accurate. At least one finding is appropriately identified. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 31.92 (11.40%) - 37.38 (13.35%) Data analysis tool is somewhat identified. An incomplete explanation on how the results are presented in the study is included. At least one finding is identified. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 25.2 (9.00%) - 31.5 (11.25%) Data analysis tool is absent or misidentified. An explanation on how the results are presented in the study is absent or grossly unclear. Findings are not included or are grossly inaccurate. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 24.78 (8.85%) Data analysis tool is absent. An explanation on how the results are presented in the study is absent. Findings are not included. Feedback:
Summary, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations	Points: Points Range: 50.4 (18.00%) - 56 (20.00%) Strengths and limitations of the study are identified. A discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is included. An evaluation of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing is included and appropriate. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 42.56 (15.20%) - 49.84 (17.80%) Strengths and limitations of the study are somewhat identified. A discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is included but may not be fully developed. An evaluation of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing may not be fully developed. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 33.6 (12.00%) - 42 (15.00%) Strengths and limitations of study are absent or lacking. A discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is absent or lacking. An evaluation of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing is absent or inappropriate. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 33.04 (11.80%) Strengths and limitations of study are absent. A discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is absent. An evaluation of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing is absent. Feedback:
Mechanics and APA Format	Points: Points Range: 12.6 (4.50%) - 14 (5.00%) Written in a clear, concise, formal, and organized manner. Responses are mostly error free. Information from sources is appropriately paraphrased and accurately cited. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 10.64 (3.80%) - 12.46 (4.45%) Writing is generally clear and organized but is not concise or formal in language. Multiple errors exist in spelling and grammar with minor interference with readability or comprehension. Most information from sources is correctly paraphrased and cited. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 8.4 (3.00%) - 10.5 (3.75%) Writing is generally unclear and unorganized. Some errors in spelling and grammar detract from readability and comprehension. Sources are missing or improperly cited. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 8.26 (2.95%) Writing is unclear and unorganized. Errors in spelling and grammar detract from readability and comprehension. Sources are missing. Feedback:

Show Descriptions Show Feedback

Research Problem/Purpose--

Levels of Achievement: Meets or Exceeds Expectations 25.2 (9.00%) - 28 (10.00%) Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are clearly identified. Mostly Meets Expectations 21.28 (7.60%) - 24.92 (8.90%) Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are somewhat identified. Below Expectations 16.8 (6.00%) - 21 (7.50%) Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are mostly absent or misidentified. Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0.00%) - 16.52 (5.90%) Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are absent. Feedback:

Review of the Literature--

Levels of Achievement: Meets or Exceeds Expectations 37.8 (13.50%) - 42 (15.00%) Concepts explored in the literature review are clearly identified. Critique of the references is included and well developed. Mostly Meets Expectations 31.92 (11.40%) - 37.38 (13.35%) Concepts explored in the literature review are somewhat identified. Critique of the references is included, but may not be fully developed. Below Expectations 25.2 (9.00%) - 31.5 (11.25%) Concepts explored in the literature review are misidentified. Critique of the references is severely lacking. Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0.00%) - 24.78 (8.85%) Concepts explored in the literature review are absent. Critique of the references is absent. Feedback:

Theoretical Framework--

Levels of Achievement: Meets or Exceeds Expectations 25.2 (9.00%) - 28 (10.00%) A theoretical concept/framework is identified and well analyzed for appropriateness. If the article lacks a concept/framework, a suitable one is suggested. Mostly Meets Expectations 21.28 (7.60%) - 24.92 (8.90%) A theoretical concept/framework is somewhat identified and analyzed for appropriateness. If the article lacks a concept/framework, a potential concept/framework is suggested, but it is somewhat inappropriate. Below Expectations 16.8 (6.00%) - 21 (7.50%) A theoretical concept/framework is somewhat identified and analyzed for appropriateness. If the article lacks a concept/framework, a potential concept/framework is suggested, is not identified or is grossly inappropriate. Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0.00%) - 16.52 (5.90%) A theoretical concept/framework is misidentified or not analyzed for appropriateness. Feedback:

Variables, Hypotheses, Questions, and Assumptions--

Levels of Achievement: Meets or Exceeds Expectations 12.6 (4.50%) - 14 (5.00%) IV and DV are identified and defined. Discussion on measurability is included. Research question and hypothesis are identified. Mostly Meets Expectations 10.64 (3.80%) - 12.46 (4.45%) IV and DV are somewhat identified and or partially defined. Discussion on measurability is somewhat included. Research question and hypothesis are partially identified. Below Expectations 8.4 (3.00%) - 10.5 (3.75%) IV and DV identification and definition are absent or severely lacking. Discussion on measurability is absent or inaccurate. Research question and hypothesis are not identified or grossly misidentified. Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0.00%) - 8.26 (2.95%) IV and DV identification and definition are absent. Discussion on measurability is absent. Research question and hypothesis are not identified. Feedback:

Methodology--

Levels of Achievement: Meets or Exceeds Expectations 50.4 (18.00%) - 56 (20.00%) Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling method, and type of reasoning are properly identified. Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are discussed. Mostly Meets Expectations 42.56 (15.20%) - 49.84 (17.80%) Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling method, and type of reasoning are somewhat identified. Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are discussed, but some information is inaccurate. Below Expectations 33.6 (12.00%) - 42 (15.00%) Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling method, and type of reasoning are absent or misidentified. Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are either absent or grossly inaccurate. Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0.00%) - 33.04 (11.80%) Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling method, and type of reasoning are absent. Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are absent. Feedback:

Data Analysis--

Levels of Achievement: Meets or Exceeds Expectations 37.8 (13.50%) - 42 (15.00%) Data analysis tool is identified. An explanation on how the results are presented in the study is included and accurate. At least one finding is appropriately identified. Mostly Meets Expectations 31.92 (11.40%) - 37.38 (13.35%) Data analysis tool is somewhat identified. An incomplete explanation on how the results are presented in the study is included. At least one finding is identified. Below Expectations 25.2 (9.00%) - 31.5 (11.25%) Data analysis tool is absent or misidentified. An explanation on how the results are presented in the study is absent or grossly unclear. Findings are not included or are grossly inaccurate. Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0.00%) - 24.78 (8.85%) Data analysis tool is absent. An explanation on how the results are presented in the study is absent. Findings are not included. Feedback:

Summary, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations--

Levels of Achievement: Meets or Exceeds Expectations 50.4 (18.00%) - 56 (20.00%) Strengths and limitations of the study are identified. A discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is included. An evaluation of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing is included and appropriate. Mostly Meets Expectations 42.56 (15.20%) - 49.84 (17.80%) Strengths and limitations of the study are somewhat identified. A discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is included but may not be fully developed. An evaluation of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing may not be fully developed. Below Expectations 33.6 (12.00%) - 42 (15.00%) Strengths and limitations of study are absent or lacking. A discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is absent or lacking. An evaluation of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing is absent or inappropriate. Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0.00%) - 33.04 (11.80%) Strengths and limitations of study are absent. A discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is absent. An evaluation of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing is absent. Feedback:

Mechanics and APA Format--

Levels of Achievement: Meets or Exceeds Expectations 12.6 (4.50%) - 14 (5.00%) Written in a clear, concise, formal, and organized manner. Responses are mostly error free. Information from sources is appropriately paraphrased and accurately cited. Mostly Meets Expectations 10.64 (3.80%) - 12.46 (4.45%) Writing is generally clear and organized but is not concise or formal in language. Multiple errors exist in spelling and grammar with minor interference with readability or comprehension. Most information from sources is correctly paraphrased and cited. Below Expectations 8.4 (3.00%) - 10.5 (3.75%) Writing is generally unclear and unorganized. Some errors in spelling and grammar detract from readability and comprehension. Sources are missing or improperly cited. Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0.00%) - 8.26 (2.95%) Writing is unclear and unorganized. Errors in spelling and grammar detract from readability and comprehension. Sources are missing. Feedback: