The purpose of this assignment is to provide the graduate nursing student opportunity to practice reading and critiquing research articles
The purpose of this assignment is to provide the graduate nursing student opportunity to practice reading and critiquing research articles for application to an evidence-based practice.
2. Integrate knowledge related to evidence-based practice and person-centered care to improve healthcare outcomes. (PO 1, 5)
3. Develop knowledge related to research and evidence-based practice as a basis for designing and critiquing research studies. (PO 1, 5)
4. Analyze research findings and evidence-based practice to advanced holistic nursing care initiatives that promote positive healthcare outcomes. (PO 1,5)
Due Date: Sunday 11:59 PM MT at the end of WEEK 6
Total Points Possible: 130 points
Description of the Assignment
During NR505 you will write three research article critiques. Each critique will involve writing a two-page analysis of an article as well as completing the Johns Hopkins Research Appraisal Tool that is applicable to the article (qualitative, quantitative or Non-research evidence). For Week 6 you will critique a qualitative research article.
Criteria for Content
1. Introduction: Provide introduction to article topic/focus, authors and specific aim of assignment.
2. Critique of Article (Body):
a. Identify the type of qualitative method of the study.
b. Content of critique should include at a minimum:
i. participant sampling,
iv. analysis of findings,
vi. discussion section,
vii. Summary: Application (translation) to practice specialty, and future implications.
c. Refer to and complete the Johns Hopkins Research Appraisal Tool.
Article Review Steps
Step 1: Go to the Chamberlain Library and select a qualitative research article on your topic of interest published within the last three (3) years.
Step 2: Write a two-page critique of the article in a Word Doc supported by course readings.
Step 3: Complete the Johns Hopkins Quantitative Research Appraisal Tool. No credit for partially completed sections of The Appraisal Tool.
Step 4: Upload your Word doc analysis and Johns Hopkins Research Appraisal Tool (in the appendix) to TurnItIn.
Preparing the Assignment:
1. APA Format according to 6th edition.
2. Word Doc
3. Word Doc Format:
Cover page, no abstract, introduction (no heading per APA), body of the paper/review, reference list, appendix with Johns Hopkins appraisal doc. For review sections refer to your readings and the Johns Hopkins Research Appraisal Tool.
List should include the chosen article and other resources used to construct the review, such as course textbook, Johns Hopkins Evidence Based Practice: Model and Guidelines, and How to Read a Paper by Greenhalgh (2014).
NR505NP WK4,5,6 Article Critique_SEPT19
|NR505NP WK4,5,6 Article Critique_SEPT19|
|This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroductionRequired content for this section includes: • Introduction to chosen article • Succinct overview of assignment focus.||10.0 ptsExcellentContent includes well-written, succinct, information that includes: Article topic/focus, authors and specific aim of assignment.9.0 ptsV. GoodContent is well-written but omits or is thin in one area.8.0 ptsSatisfactorySection content is basic in its explanation of the article (overview) and the purpose of the assignment but lacks specific detail and depth.5.0 ptsNeeds ImprovementAll content is included but difficult to piece together in its explanation of the article (overview) and the purpose of the assignment OR a piece of the content is missing, for example, overview of assignment focus, yet what is written is well stated.0.0 ptsUnsatisfactoryMissing OR Section content is vague in its introduction of the article (overview) and the purpose of the assignment is missing OR article overview is missing, and purpose of the assignment is vague.)||10.0 pts|
|This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritique of ArticleRequired content for this section includes: • Methodological review specific to type (non-research versus research): (use text and resources) • Ethical review (not always present with guidelines or systematic reviews) • Analysis of findings • Limitations • Discussion • Application to practice (translation) • Future implications||50.0 ptsExcellentAll content is included in the critique with comprehensive definitions, examples and with in-text citations that support the article evaluation with depth.46.0 ptsV. GoodAll content is included in the critique. One or two sections may be included without depth: For example, Definitions, examples and with in-text citations that support the article evaluation with depth. Or: All content has explanatory depth of analysis including definitions, examples and in-text citations supporting the analysis, however, a content area may be missing (such as ethical review or limitations)42.0 ptsSatisfactoryTwo or three content areas are missing, or all content areas are included but there is inconsistent depth/ integration of definitions, examples and in-text citations that support the article evaluation with depth25.0 ptsNeeds ImprovementFour or more content areas are missing, or all content areas are included but there is little to no depth/ integration of definitions, examples and in-text citations that support the article evaluation with depth.0.0 ptsUnsatisfactoryCritique is vague, without structure, without discernible integration of definitions, examples, and in-text citations that support the writing.||50.0 pts|
|This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeJohns Hopkins Appraisal Tool||50.0 ptsExcellentAll sections of the Appraisal Tool are completed for the correct article review (for example, the non-research tool is used for guidelines, the qualitative tool is used for qualitative review).46.0 ptsV. GoodTool is included, is the correct tool, and is missing: A. Non-Evidence Tool: 1 of the 6 sections B. Evidence Tool: 1 section missing42.0 ptsSatisfactoryTool is included, is the correct tool, and is missing: A. Non-Evidence Tool 2 or 3 of the 6 sections B. Evidence Tool: 2 sections missing25.0 ptsNeeds ImprovementTool is included and is missing: A. Non-Evidence Tool 4 or more of the 6 sections B. Evidence Tool – 3 more sections missing.0.0 ptsUnsatisfactoryTool is missing or the wrong tool is used.||50.0 pts|
|This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization & FormatRequirements: • Cover (title) page • No abstract • Introduction • Body of paper and reference page must follow APA guidelines as found in the 6th edition of the manual. This includes the use of headings for each section of the paper except for the introduction where no heading is used.||15.0 ptsExcellentAll aspects of paper follow APA guidelines (cover, no abstract, introduction, headings (not on introduction), body of paper and reference page14.0 ptsV. Good1-3 APA errors12.0 ptsSatisfactory4-5 APA errors8.0 ptsNeeds Improvement6-9 APA errors0.0 ptsUnsatisfactory10 or greater APA errors||15.0 pts|
|This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSyntax, grammar, spellingRules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are followed and consistent with formal written work as found in the 6th edition of the APA manual.||5.0 ptsExcellentThere are no grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors.4.0 ptsV. Good1-3 grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors.3.0 ptsSatisfactory4-5 grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors.2.0 ptsNeeds Improvement6-9 grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors.0.0 ptsUnsatisfactory10 or greater grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors.||5.0 pts|
|Total Points: 130.0|