NURS 6052 Critical Appraisal, Evaluation/Summary and Synthesis of Evidence

NURS 6052 Critical Appraisal, Evaluation/Summary and Synthesis of Evidence

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Critical Appraisal [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Due By Assignment
Week 6, Days 1-4 Read the Learning Resources.
Begin to compose Part A of your Assignment..
Week 6, Days 5-7 Continue to compose Part B of your Assignment.
Begin to compose Part B of your Assignment.
Week 7, Days 1-6 Continue to compose Part A and B of your Assignment.
Week 7, Day 7 Deadline to submit Part A and B of your Assignment.
Learning Objectives

Students will:

Evaluate peer-reviewed articles using critical appraisal tools
Analyze best practices based on critical appraisal of evidence-based research
Learning Resources

Note: To access this module’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.

Chapter 5, “Critically Appraising Quantitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making” (pp. 124–188)NURS 6052 Critical Appraisal, Evaluation or Summary and Synthesis of Evidence
NURS 6052 Critical Appraisal, Evaluation or Summary and Synthesis of Evidence

Chapter 6, “Critically Appraising Qualitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making” (pp. 189–218)
Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010a). Evidence-based practice step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part I. American Journal of Nursing, 110(7), 47–52. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000383935.22721.9c

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010b). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part II: Digging deeper—examining the “keeper” studies. American Journal of Nursing, 110(9), 41–48. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000388264.49427.f9

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010c). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part III: The process of synthesis: Seeing similarities and differences across the body of evidence. American Journal of Nursing, 110(11), 43–51. doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000390523.99066.b5

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Critical appraisal of qualitative evidence. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 15(3), 202–207. doi:10.1177/1078390309338733

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Document: Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template (Word document)

Required Media

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Appraising the Research [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Interpreting Statistics [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Review of research: Hierarchy of evidence pyramid [Mutlimedia file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Schulich Library McGill. (2017, June 6). Types of reviews [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/5Rv9z7Mp4kg

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 6052 Critical Appraisal, Evaluation/Summary and Synthesis of Evidence

Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content

Name: NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric

Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Part 3A: Critical Appraisal of Research Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected and analyzed by completing the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Be sure to include: · An Evaluation Table Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
The critical appraisal accurately and clearly provides a detailed evaluation table. The responses provide a detailed, specific, and accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.

Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
The critical appraisal accurately provides an evaluation table. The responses provide an accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected with some specificity.

Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate or vague. The responses provide an inaccurate or vague evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate and vague or is missing.

Part 3B: Evidence-Based Best Practices Based on your appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research. Points Range: 32 (32%) – 35 (35%)
The responses accurately and clearly suggest a detailed best practice that is fully aligned to the research reviewed.

The responses accurately and clearly explain in detail the best practice, with sufficient justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. The response fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the responses provided.

Accurate, complete, and full APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.

Points Range: 28 (28%) – 31 (31%)
The responses accurately suggest a best practice that is adequately aligned to the research reviewed.

The responses accurately explain the best practice, with adequately justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed on the best practice explained. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the responses provided.

Accurate and complete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.

Points Range: 25 (25%) – 27 (27%)
The responses inaccurately or vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed.

The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate or vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide a vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided.

Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 24 (24%)
The responses inaccurately and vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed or are missing.

The responses inaccurately and vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate and vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field, or are missing. A vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained is provided or is missing. The response fails to integrate any resources to support the responses provided.

Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed or is missing.

Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.

Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.

Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive.

Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time.

No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.

Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.

Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.

Written Expression and Formatting—The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors.

Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) APA format errors.

Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) APA format errors.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) APA format errors.

Total Points: 100