Select a guideline or systematic review article from the Week 4 list.
Week 4: Johns Hopkins Nursing Non-Research Appraisal tool
Purpose
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.
Activity Learning Outcomes
Through this assignment, the student will demonstrate the ability to:
Integrate evidence-based practice and research to support advancement of holistic nursing care in diverse healthcare settings. (PO 1)
Integrate knowledge related to evidence-based practice and person-centered care to improve healthcare outcomes. (PO 1, 5)
Develop knowledge related to research and evidence-based practice as a basis for designing and critiquing research studies. (PO 1, 5)
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 4
Students are expected to submit assignments by the time they are due. Assignments submitted after the due date and time will receive a deduction of 10% of the total points possible for that assignment for each day the assignment is late. Assignments will be accepted, with penalty as described, up to a maximum of three days late, after which point a zero will be recorded for the assignment. Quizzes and discussions are not considered assi gnments and are not part of the late assignment policy.
Total Points Possible: 130 points
Directions and Assignment Criteria
Students will critique a research article in weeks 4, 5 & 6 (3 total) as follows:
Week 4: Non-research appraisal (Links to an external site.): Guidelines and Reviews
Week 5: Quantitative Methodology
Week 6: Qualitative Methodology
Each critique will require a two-three page written analysis of the article. The paper should include:
Introduction
Article topic/focus
Author(s)
Aim of assignment
Critique of Article
The article critique should be a methodological review specific to type of article (for example, qualitative or quantitative) . The analysis must be two to three pages and detailed using the text and resources. The content of the review should also include:
Ethical review
Analysis of findings
Limitations
Discussion
Application (translation) to practice specialty
Future implications
In addition, students must complete the Johns Hopkins Research Appraisal Tool that is applicable to the type of study design (qualitative, quantitative or non-research evidence) for the week. Refer to the rubric for additional requirements.
Preparing the Assignment
Week 4
Non-research appraisal: Guideline or Systematic Review
Select a guideline or systematic review article from the Week 4 list.
Write a two-three (2-3) page critique of the article in a Word Doc integrating your course readings. Be sure to include a citation for your article using APA format.
Complete the Johns Hopkins Non-research evidence review document.
Submit both through TurnItIn by Sunday 11:59pm MT of week 4
Format & Presentation Requirements
APA Format According to the current edition
Word Doc per assignment requirements.
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.
Article title, author, journal, publication date
Evidence level and quality
Analysis of the study methodology (specific to study type, e.g., qualitative versus quantitative versus non-research)
Reference 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).
ASSIGNMENT CONTENT
Category
Points
%
Description
Introduction
10
8%
Required content for this section includes:
Introduction to chosen article: Provide introduction to article topic/focus, authors and specific aim of assignment.
Succinct overview of assignment focus.
Critique of Article
50
38%
Required 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
Johns Hopkins Appraisal Tool
50
38%
All 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).
110
84%
Total CONTENT Points= 110 pts
ASSIGNMENT FORMAT
Category
Points
%
Description
APA (current edition)
15
12%
Requirements:
Cover (title) page
Running head
No abstract
Introduction (no heading per APA)
Body of paper and reference page must follow APA guidelines as found in the current 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.
Syntax, grammar, spelling
5
4%
Rules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are followed and consistent with formal written work as found in the current edition of the APA manual.
20
16%
Total FORMAT Points= 20 pts
130
100%
ASSIGNMENT TOTAL=130 points
image
Rubric
Title:
NR505NP WK4,5,6 Article Critique_SEPT19 (1)
NR505NP WK4,5,6 Article Critique_SEPT19 (1)
NR505NP WK4,5,6 Article Critique_SEPT19 (1)
Criteria Ratings Pts
Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction
Required content for this section includes:
• Introduction to chosen article
• Succinct overview of assignment focus.
Range
threshold: pts
Edit ratingDelete rating
10.0 pts
Excellent
Content includes well-written, succinct, information that includes: Article topic/focus, authors and specific aim of assignment.
Edit ratingDelete rating
9.0 pts
V. Good
Content is well-written but omits or is thin in one area.
Edit ratingDelete rating
8.0 pts
Satisfactory
Section content is basic in its explanation of the article (overview) and the purpose of the assignment but lacks specific detail and depth.
Edit ratingDelete rating
5.0 pts
Needs Improvement
All 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.
Edit ratingDelete rating
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Missing 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
10.0 pts
—
Additional Comments
Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritique of Article
Required 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
Range
threshold: pts
Edit ratingDelete rating
50.0 pts
Excellent
All content is included in the critique with comprehensive definitions, examples and with in-text citations that support the article evaluation with depth.
Edit ratingDelete rating
46.0 pts
V. Good
All 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)
Edit ratingDelete rating
42.0 pts
Satisfactory
Two 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 depth
Edit ratingDelete rating
25.0 pts
Needs Improvement
Four 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.
Edit ratingDelete rating
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Critique is vague, without structure, without discernible integration of definitions, examples, and in-text citations that support the writing.
50.0
pts
50.0 pts
—
Additional Comments
Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeJohns Hopkins Appraisal Tool
Range
threshold: pts
Edit ratingDelete rating
50.0 pts
Excellent
All 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).
Edit ratingDelete rating
46.0 pts
V. Good
Tool is included, is the correct tool, and is missing: A. Non-Evidence Tool: 1 of the 6 sections B. Evidence Tool: 1 section missing
Edit ratingDelete rating
42.0 pts
Satisfactory
Tool 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 missing
Edit ratingDelete rating
25.0 pts
Needs Improvement
Tool is included and is missing: A. Non-Evidence Tool 4 or more of the 6 sections B. Evidence Tool – 3 more sections missing.
Edit ratingDelete rating
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Tool is missing or the wrong tool is used.
50.0
pts
50.0 pts
—
Additional Comments
Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization & Format
Requirements:
• 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.
Range
threshold: pts
Edit ratingDelete rating
15.0 pts
Excellent
All aspects of paper follow APA guidelines (cover, no abstract, introduction, headings (not on introduction), body of paper and reference page
Edit ratingDelete rating
14.0 pts
V. Good
1-3 APA errors
Edit ratingDelete rating
12.0 pts
Satisfactory
4-5 APA errors
Edit ratingDelete rating
8.0 pts
Needs Improvement
6-9 APA errors
Edit ratingDelete rating
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
10 or greater APA errors
15.0
pts
15.0 pts
—
Additional Comments
Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSyntax, grammar, spelling
Rules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are followed and consistent with formal written work as found in the current edition of the APA manual.
Range
threshold: pts
Edit ratingDelete rating
5.0 pts
Excellent
There are no grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors.
Edit ratingDelete rating
4.0 pts
V. Good
1-3 grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors.
Edit ratingDelete rating
3.0 pts
Satisfactory
4-5 grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors.
Edit ratingDelete rating
2.0 pts
Needs Improvement
6-9 grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors.
Edit ratingDelete rating
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
10 or greater grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors.
5.0
pts
5.0 pts
—
Additional Comments
Total Points: 130.0
2 Attachments
2017_Appendix F_Non_research Evidence Appraisal Tool (1)
Image preview for select a guideline or systematic review article from the Week 4 list.
APA
682 words