Assignment: Evidence-Based Project

Want create site? With Free visual composer you can do it easy.

Assignment: Evidence-Based Project

Assignment: Evidence-Based Project

Is there a difference between “common practice” and “best practice”?

When you first went to work for your current organization, experienced colleagues may have shared with you details about processes and procedures. Perhaps you even attended an orientation session to brief you on these matters. As a “rookie,” you likely kept the nature of your questions to those with answers that would best help you perform your new role.

Click here to ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT:  Assignment: Evidence-Based Project  

Over time and with experience, perhaps you recognized aspects of these processes and procedures that you wanted to question further. This is the realm of clinical inquiry.

Clinical inquiry is the practice of asking questions about clinical practice. To continuously improve patient care, all nurses should consistently use clinical inquiry to question why they are doing something the way they are doing it. Do they know why it is done this way, or is it just because we have always done it this way? Is it a common practice or a best practice?

In this Assignment, you will identify clinical areas of interest and inquiry and practice searching for research in support of maintaining or changing these practices. You will also analyze this research to compare research methodologies employed.

To Prepare:

Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry.
Based on the clinical issue of interest and using keywords related to the clinical issue of interest, search at least four different databases in the Walden Library to identify at least four relevant peer-reviewed articles related to your clinical issue of interest.
Review the results of your peer-reviewed research and reflect on the process of using an unfiltered database to search for peer-reviewed research.
Reflect on the types of research methodologies contained in the four relevant peer-reviewed articles you selected.
Part 1: An Introduction to Clinical Inquiry

Create a 4- to 5-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:

Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest.
Describe how you used keywords to search on your chosen clinical issue of interest.
Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
Provide APA citations of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected.
Part 2: Identifying Research Methodologies

After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following:

The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.
A brief (1-paragraph) statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest.
A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article.
A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.
A brief (1- to 2-paragraph) description of the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
Assignment: Evidence-Based Project
Is there a difference between “common practice” and “best practice”?

When you first went to work for your current organization, experienced colleagues may have shared with you details about processes and procedures. Perhaps you even attended an orientation session to brief you on these matters. As a “rookie,” you likely kept the nature of your questions to those with answers that would best help you perform your new role.

Over time and with experience, perhaps you recognized aspects of these processes and procedures that you wanted to question further. This is the realm of clinical inquiry.

Clinical inquiry is the practice of asking questions about clinical practice. To continuously improve patient care, all nurses should consistently use clinical inquiry to question why they are doing something the way they are doing it. Do they know why it is done this way, or is it just because we have always done it this way? Is it a common practice or a best practice?

In this Assignment, you will identify clinical areas of interest and inquiry and practice searching for research in support of maintaining or changing these practices. You will also analyze this research to compare research methodologies employed.

To Prepare:

Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry.
Based on the clinical issue of interest and using keywords related to the clinical issue of interest, search at least four different databases in the Walden Library to identify at least four relevant peer-reviewed articles related to your clinical issue of interest.
Review the results of your peer-reviewed research and reflect on the process of using an unfiltered database to search for peer-reviewed research.
Reflect on the types of research methodologies contained in the four relevant peer-reviewed articles you selected.
Part 1: An Introduction to Clinical Inquiry

Create a 4- to 5-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:

Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest.
Describe how you used keywords to search on your chosen clinical issue of interest.
Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
Provide APA citations of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected.
Part 2: Identifying Research Methodologies

After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following:

The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.
A brief (1-paragraph) statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest.
A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article.
A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.
A brief (1- to 2-paragraph) description of the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles you selected.

Learning Resources

Note: To access this week’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

    2, “Asking Compelling Clinical Questions” (pp. 33–54)

  • Chapter 21, “Generating Evidence Through Quantitative and Qualitative Research” (pp. 607–653)

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

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

Hoare, Z., & Hoe, J. (2013). Understanding quantitative research: Part 2. Nursing Standard, 27(18), 48–55. doi:10.7748/ns2013.01.27.18.48.c9488

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

Hoe, J., & Hoare, Z. (2012). Understanding quantitative research: Part 1. Nursing Standard, 27(15), 52–57. doi:10.7748/ns2012.12.27.15.52.c9485

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

Walden University Library. (n.d.-a). Databases A-Z: Nursing. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981

Walden University Library. (n.d.-b). Evaluating resources: Primary & secondary sources. Retrieved January 22, 2020, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/sources

Walden University Library. (n.d.-f). Keyword searching: Finding articles on your topic: Boolean terms. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/boolean

Walden University Library. (n.d.-g). Keyword searching: Finding articles on your topic: Introduction to keyword searching. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/searching-basics

Walden University Library. (n.d.-i). Quick Answers: What are filtered and unfiltered resources in nursing? Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicanswers.waldenu.edu/faq/73299

Document: Matrix Worksheet Template (Word document)

Required Media

Centers for Research Quality. (2015a, August 13). Overview of qualitative research methods [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/IsAUNs-IoSQ

Centers for Research Quality. (2015b, August 13). Overview of quantitative research methods [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/cwU8as9ZNlA

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Review of research: Anatomy of a research study [Mutlimedia file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

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


Quiz: Is It Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Methods?

An effective understanding and application of research requires an understanding of the underlying methodologies employed. This quiz will assess your understanding of the quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method research methodologies.

To Prepare:

  • Review the research methodology terms and concepts presented to you this week.

By Day 7 of Week 2

Submit your Quiz.

Note: You may submit your Quiz as many times as you like until Day 7 of Week 2.

Submission and Grading Information

Submit Your Quiz by Day 7 of Week 2

To submit your Quiz:

Week 2 Quiz

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6052_Module02_Week03_Assignment_Rubric

Grid View
List View

Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Part 1: An Introduction to Clinical Inquiry

Create a 4- to 5-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:

·   Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest.

·   Describe how you used keywords to search on your chosen clinical issue of interest.

·   Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.

·   Provide APA citations of the four-peer reviewed articles you selected.

Points Range: 36 (36%) – 40 (40%)
The presentation clearly and accurately identifies and describes in detail the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation accurately and thoroughly describes in detail how keywords were used to search on the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation accurately and clearly identifies in detail four or more research databases that were used to conduct a search for selected peer-reviewed articles.

The presentation accurately provides APA citations of four or more peer-reviewed articles selected.

Points Range: 32 (32%) – 35 (35%)
The presentation accurately identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation accurately describes how keywords were used to search on the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation accurately identifies at least four research databases that were used to conduct a search for selected peer-reviewed articles.

The presentation accurately provides APA citations of at least four peer-reviewed articles selected.

Points Range: 28 (28%) – 31 (31%)
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes how keywords were used to search on the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies at least four research databases that were used to conduct a search for selected peer-reviewed articles.

The presentation inaccurately provides APA citations of the peer-reviewed articles selected.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 27 (27%)
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes how keywords were used to search on the chosen clinical issue of interest or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies less than four research databases that were used to conduct a search for selected peer-reviewed articles or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately provides APA citations of the peer-reviewed articles selected.
Part 2: Identifying Research Methodologies

After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following:

·  The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.

·   A brief statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest.

·   A brief description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article.

·  A brief description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.

Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
The response accurately and clearly provides a full citation of each article in APA format.

The responses accurately and thoroughly explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including a detailed explanation of the ethics of research.

The responses accurately and clearly describe the aims of the research.

The responses accurately and clearly describe the research methodology used, and clearly identify the type of methodology used with specific and relevant examples.

The responses accurately and clearly describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including a detailed explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected.

The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources related to the selection of articles and two or three course-specific resources.

Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
The response accurately provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.

The responses accurately explain the selection of these peer-reviewed articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including an accurate explanation of ethics.

The responses accurately describe the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article.

The responses accurately describe the research methodology used and type of methodology used with some examples.

The responses accurately describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including an explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.

The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the selection of the peer-reviewed articles. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources.

Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
The response inaccurately or vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.

The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including the explanation of the ethics.

The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the aims of the research of each article.

The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the research methodology used and the type of methodology used, with only some examples.

The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected.

The responses provided vaguely or inaccurately synthesize outside resources related to the selection of the articles. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
The response inaccurately and vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format or is missing.

The responses inaccurately and vaguely explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue, including the explanation of ethics of research, or they are missing.

The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the aims of the research, or they are missing.

The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the research methodology used, the type of methodology used with no examples present, or they are missing.

The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the strengths of each of the methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity of the methodology, or they are missing.

The responses provide a vague and inaccurate synthesis of outside resources related to the selection of the articles and fail to integrate any resources to support the responses provided, 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 are 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 are stated but are 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 is 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.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6052_Module02_Week03_Assignment_Rubric

Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 3: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

Your quest to purchase a new car begins with an identification of the factors important to you. As you conduct a search of cars that rate high on those factors, you collect evidence and try to understand the extent of that evidence. A report that suggests a certain make and model of automobile has high mileage is encouraging. But who produced that report? How valid is it? How was the data collected, and what was the sample size?

In this Assignment, you will delve deeper into clinical inquiry by closely examining your PICO(T) question. You also begin to analyze the evidence you have collected.

To Prepare:

  • Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry.
  • Develop a PICO(T) question to address the clinical issue of interest you identified in Module 2 for the Assignment. This PICOT question will remain the same for the entire course.
  • Use the key words from the PICO(T) question you developed and search at least four different databases in the Walden Library. Identify at least four relevant systematic reviews or other filtered high-level evidence, which includes meta-analyses, critically-appraised topics (evidence syntheses), critically-appraised individual articles (article synopses). The evidence will not necessarily address all the elements of your PICO(T) question, so select the most important concepts to search and find the best evidence available.
  • Reflect on the process of creating a PICO(T) question and searching for peer-reviewed research.

The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)

Part 3: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

Create a 6- to 7-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:

  • Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest.
  • Describe how you developed a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest.
  • Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
  • Provide APA citations of the four relevant peer-reviewed articles at the systematic-reviews level related to your research question. If there are no systematic review level articles or meta-analysis on your topic, then use the highest level of evidence peer reviewed article.
  • Describe the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. Be specific and provide examples.

By Day 7 of Week 5

Submit Part 3 of your Evidence-Based Project.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

  • Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK5Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
  • Click the Week 5 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
  • Click the Week 5 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
  • Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK5Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
  • If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
  • Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
  • Due to the nature of this assignment, your instructor may require more than 5 days to provide you with quality feedback.
Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 5 Assignment Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:

Submit your Week 5 Assignment draft and review the originality report.

Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 5

To submit your Assignment:

Week 5 Assignment

To go to the next week:

Module 4

Rubric Detail

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

Name: NURS_6052_Module03_Week05_Assignment_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Part 3: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

 

Create a 6- to 7-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:

 

· Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest.

· Describe how you developed a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest.

· Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.

· Provide APA citations of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected.

· Describe the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. Be specific and provide examples.
81 (81%) – 90 (90%)
The presentation clearly and accurately identifies and describes in detail the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation clearly and accurately describes in detail the developed PICO(T) question.

The presentation clearly and accurately identifies four or more research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected.

The presentation clearly and accurately provides full APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including a thorough and detailed explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research.

The presentation includes specific and relevant examples that fully support the research.

The presentation provides a complete, detailed, and accurate synthesis of two outside resources related to the peer-reviewed articles selected, and fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the presentation.
72 (72%) – 80 (80%)
The presentation accurately identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation accurately describes the developed PICO(T) question focused on the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation accurately identifies at least four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected.

The presentation accurately provides APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including an adequate explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research.

The presentation includes relevant examples that support the research presented.

The presentation provides an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the peer-reviewed articles selected. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the presentation.
63 (63%) – 71 (71%)
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes the developed PICO(T) question focused on the chosen clinical issue of interest.

The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies at least four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected.

The presentation inaccurately or vaguely provides APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including an inaccurate or vague explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research.

The presentation includes inaccurate or vague examples to support the research presented.

The presentation provides a vague or inaccurate synthesis or outside resources related to the peer-reviewed articles selected. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the presentation.
0 (0%) – 62 (62%)
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes the developed PICO(T) question, or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies less than four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely provides APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including an inaccurate and vague explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research, or is missing.

The presentation includes inaccurate and vague examples to support the research presented or is missing.

The presentation provides a vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources related to the articles selected and fails to integrate any resources to support the presentation 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.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria.
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.
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.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.

No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion are provided.
Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6052_Module03_Week05_Assignment_Rubric

Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: Critical Appraisal of Research

Realtors rely on detailed property appraisals—conducted using appraisal tools—to assign market values to houses and other properties. These values are then presented to buyers and sellers to set prices and initiate offers.

Research appraisal is not that different. The critical appraisal process utilizes formal appraisal tools to assess the results of research to determine value to the context at hand. Evidence-based practitioners often present these findings to make the case for specific courses of action.

In this Assignment, you will use an appraisal tool to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.

To Prepare:

  • Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and the four systematic reviews (or other filtered high- level evidence) you selected in Module 3.
  • Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3.
  • Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template provided in the Resources.

The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)

Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected by completing the Evaluation Table within the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Choose a total of four peer- reviewed articles that you selected related to your clinical topic of interest in Module 2 and Module 3.

Note: You can choose any combination of articles from Modules 2 and 3 for your Critical Appraisal. For example, you may choose two unfiltered research articles from Module 2 and two filtered research articles (systematic reviews) from Module 3 or one article from Module 2 and three articles from Module 3. You can choose any combination of articles from the prior Module Assignments as long as both modules and types of studies are represented.

Part 4B: Critical Appraisal of Research

Based on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical 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.

By Day 7 of Week 7

Submit Part 4A and 4B of your Evidence-Based Project.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

  • Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK7Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
  • Click the Week 7 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
  • Click the Week 7 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
  • Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK7Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
  • If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
  • Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 7 Assignment Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:

Submit your Week 7 Assignment draft and review the originality report.

Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 7

To submit your Assignment:

Week 7 Assignment

To go to the next week:

Module 5

Rubric Detail

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

Name: NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Part 4A: 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
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.
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.
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.
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate and vague or is missing.
Part 4B: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
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.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) APA format errors.
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) APA format errors.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) APA format errors.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric

Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 5: Recommending an Evidence-Based Practice Change

The collection of evidence is an activity that occurs with an endgame in mind. For example, law enforcement professionals collect evidence to support a decision to charge those accused of criminal activity. Similarly, evidence-based healthcare practitioners collect evidence to support decisions in pursuit of specific healthcare outcomes.

In this Assignment, you will identify an issue or opportunity for change within your healthcare organization and propose an idea for a change in practice supported by an EBP approach.

To Prepare:

  • Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you critically appraised in Module 4, related to your clinical topic of interest and PICOT.
  • Reflect on your current healthcare organization and think about potential opportunities for evidence-based change, using your topic of interest and PICOT as the basis for your reflection.

The Assignment: (Evidence-Based Project)

Part 5: Recommending an Evidence-Based Practice Change

Create an 8- to 9-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:

  • Briefly describe your healthcare organization, including its culture and readiness for change. (You may opt to keep various elements of this anonymous, such as your company name.)
  • Describe the current problem or opportunity for change. Include in this description the circumstances surrounding the need for change, the scope of the issue, the stakeholders involved, and the risks associated with change implementation in general.
  • Propose an evidence-based idea for a change in practice using an EBP approach to decision making. Note that you may find further research needs to be conducted if sufficient evidence is not discovered.
  • Describe your plan for knowledge transfer of this change, including knowledge creation, dissemination, and organizational adoption and implementation.
  • Describe the measurable outcomes you hope to achieve with the implementation of this evidence-based change.
  • Be sure to provide APA citations of the supporting evidence-based peer reviewed articles you selected to support your thinking.
  • Add a lessons learned section that includes the following:
    • A summary of the critical appraisal of the peer-reviewed articles you previously submitted
    • An explanation about what you learned from completing the Evaluation Table within the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template (1-3 slides)

By Day 7 of Week 9

Submit Part 5 of your Evidence-Based Project.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

  • Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK9Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
  • Click the Week 9 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
  • Click the Week 9 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
  • Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK9Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
  • If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
  • Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
  • Due to the nature of this assignment, your instructor may require more than 5 days to provide you with quality feedback.
Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 9 Assignment Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:

Submit your Week 9 Assignment draft and review the originality report.

Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 9

To submit your Assignment:

Week 9 Assignment

To go to the next week:

Module 6

Rubric Detail

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

Name: NURS_6052_Module05_Week09_Assignment_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Part 5: Recommending an Evidence-Based Practice Change

 

Create an 8- to 9-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:

 

· Briefly describe your healthcare organization, including its culture and readiness for change.

· Describe the current problem or opportunity for change. Include in this description the circumstances surrounding the need for change, the scope of the issue, the stakeholders involved, and the risks associated with change implementation in general.
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
The presentation clearly and accurately describes in detail a healthcare organization, including a detailed explanation of its culture and readiness for change.

The presentation clearly and accurately describes in detail a current problem or opportunity for change.

An accurate, specific, and detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the need for change, the scope of the issue, the stakeholders involved, and the risks associated with change implementation in general is provided.
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
The presentation accurately describes a healthcare organization, including an accurate explanation of its culture and readiness for change.

The presentation accurately describes a current problem or opportunity for change.

An accurate description of the circumstances surrounding the need for change, the scope of the issue, the stakeholders involved, and the risks associated with the change implementation in general is provided.
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes a healthcare organization, including an inaccurate or vague explanation of its culture and readiness for change.

The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes a current problem or opportunity for change.

An inaccurate or vague description of the circumstances surrounding the need for change, the scope of the issue, the stakeholders involved, and the risks associated with the change implementation in general is provided.
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes a healthcare organization, including an inaccurate and vague explanation of its culture and readiness for change, or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes a current problem or opportunity for change or is missing.

An inaccurate and vague description of the circumstances surrounding the need for change, the scope of the issue, the stakeholders involved, and the risks associated with the change implementation in general is provided or is missing.
· Propose an evidence-based idea for a change in practice using an evidence-based practice approach to decision making. Note that you may find further research needs to be conducted if sufficient evidence is not discovered.

· Describe your plan for knowledge transfer of this change, including knowledge creation, dissemination, and organizational adoption and implementation.

· Describe the measurable outcomes you hope to achieve with the implementation of this evidence-based change.

· Be sure to provide APA citations of the supporting evidence-based peer-reviewed articles you selected to support your thinking.
32 (32%) – 35 (35%)
The presentation clearly and accurately proposes in detail an evidence-based idea for a change in practice that is fully aligned to an evidence-based practice approach for decision making.

The presentation clearly and accurately describes in detail a plan for knowledge transfer of this change, including a detailed plan for knowledge creation, dissemination, and organizational adoption and implementation that is specific.

The presentation clearly and accurately describes in detail the measurable outcomes desired for the implementation of the evidence-based change.

The presentation includes accurate, complete, and full APA citations of the supporting evidence-based peer-reviewed articles selected.
28 (28%) – 31 (31%)
The presentation accurately proposes an evidence-based idea for a change in practice that is adequately aligned to an evidence-based practice approach for decision making.

The presentation accurately describes a plan for knowledge transfer of this change, including a plan for knowledge creation, dissemination, and organizational adoption and implementation that is adequate.

The presentation accurately describes the measurable outcomes desired for the implementation of the evidence-based changes.

The presentation includes accurate APA citations of the supporting evidence-based peer-reviewed articles selected.
25 (25%) – 27 (27%)
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely proposes an evidence-based idea for a change in practice that may be aligned to an evidence-based practice approach for decision making.

The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes a plan for knowledge transfer of this change, including a plan for knowledge creation, dissemination, and organizational adoption and implementation that may be relevant.

The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes the measurable outcomes desired for the implementation of the evidence-based change.

Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations of the supporting evidence-based peer-reviewed articles selected are provided.
0 (0%) – 24 (24%)
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely proposes an evidence-based idea for a change in practice that is not aligned to an evidence-based practice approach for decision making or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes a plan for knowledge transfer of this change, including a plan for knowledge creation, dissemination, and organizational adoption that implementation that is incomplete, or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes the measurable outcomes desired for the implementation of the evidence-based change or is missing.

Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations of the supporting evidence-based peer-reviewed articles selected are provided or are missing.
Add a lessons learned section that includes:

· A summary of the critical appraisal of the peer-reviewed articles you previously submitted.

· What did you learn from completing the evaluation table?
27 (27%) – 30 (30%)
The presentation clearly and accurately summarizes in detail the critical appraisal process of the peer-reviewed articles previously submitted.

The presentation thoroughly describes in detail at least one lesson learned from completing the evaluation table that is specific.

The presentation thoroughly describes in detail at least one lesson learned from completing the levels of evidence table that is specific.

The presentation thoroughly describes in detail at least one lesson learned from completing the outcomes synthesis table that is specific.

The presentation provides a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources reviewed on the lessons learned explained. The presentation fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the presentation.
24 (24%) – 26 (26%)
The presentation accurately summarizes the critical appraisal process of the peer-reviewed articles previously submitted.

The presentation accurately describes at least one lesson learned from completing the evaluation table that may include some specificity.

The presentation accurately describes at least one lesson learned from completing the levels of evidence table that may include some specificity.

The presentation accurately describes at least one lesson learned from completing the outcomes synthesis table that may include some specificity.

The presentation provides an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed related to the lessons learned explained. The presentation integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the presentation.
21 (21%) – 23 (23%)
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the critical appraisal process of the peer-reviewed articles previously submitted.

The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes at least one lesson learned from completing the evaluation table and may lack some specificity.

The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes at least one lesson learned from completing the levels of evidence table and may lack some specificity.

The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes at least one lesson learned from completing the outcomes synthesis table and may lack some specificity.

The presentation provides a vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed related to the lessons learned explained. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the presentation.
0 (0%) – 20 (20%)
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the critical appraisal process of the peer-reviewed articles previously submitted or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes at least one lesson learned from completing the evaluation table and lacks specificity or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes at least one lesson learned from completing the levels of evidence table that lacks specificity or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes at least one lesson learned from completing the outcomes synthesis table that lacks specificity or is missing.

The presentation provides a vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources related to the lessons learned explained or is missing. The presentation fails to incorporate any resources to support the responses provided.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
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 format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct paper formatting with no errors.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) paper formatting errors.
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) paper formatting errors.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) paper formatting errors.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6052_Module05_Week09_Assignment_Rubric

Assignment: Evidence-Based Capstone Project, Part 6: Disseminating Results

The dissemination of EBP results serves multiple important roles. Sharing results makes the case for your decisions. It also adds to the body of knowledge, which creates opportunities for future practitioners. By presenting results, you also become an advocate for EBP, creating a culture within your organization or beyond that informs, educates, and promotes the effective use of EBP.

To Prepare:

  • Review the final PowerPoint presentation you submitted in Module 5, and make any necessary changes based on the feedback you have received and on lessons you have learned throughout the course.
  • Consider the best method of disseminating the results of your presentation to an audience.

To Complete:

Create a 5-minute, 5- to 6-slide narrated PowerPoint presentation of your Evidence-Based Project.

  • Be sure to incorporate any feedback or changes from your presentation submission in Module 5.
  • Explain how you would disseminate the results of your project to an audience. Provide a rationale for why you selected this dissemination strategy.

By Day 5 of Week 11

Submit Part 6, your revised PowerPoint presentation of your Evidence-Based Project.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

  • Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK11Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
  • Click the Week 11 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
  • Click the Week 11 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
  • Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK11Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
  • If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
  • Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 11 Assignment Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:

Submit your Week 11 Assignment draft and review the originality report.

Submit Your Assignment by Day 5 of Week 11

To submit your Assignment:

Week 11 Assignment

Congratulations! After you have finished all of the assignments for this Module, you have completed the course. Please submit your Course Evaluation by Day 7.

Rubric Detail

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

Name: NURS_6052_Module06_Week11_Assignment_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Part 6: Disseminating Results

Create a 5-minute, 5- to 6-slide narrated PowerPoint presentation of your Evidence-Based Project:

· Be sure to incorporate any feedback or changes from your presentation submission in Module 5.
· Explain how you would disseminate the results of your project to an audience. Provide a rationale for why you selected this dissemination strategy.
81 (81%) – 90 (90%)
The narrated presentation accurately and completely summarizes the evidence-based project. The narrated presentation is professional in nature and thoroughly addresses all components of the evidence-based project.

The narrated presentation accurately and clearly explains in detail how to disseminate the results of the project to an audience, citing specific and relevant examples.

The narrated presentation accurately and clearly provides a justification that details the selection of this dissemination strategy that is fully supported by specific and relevant examples.

The narrated presentation provides a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources related to the dissemination strategy explained. The narrated presentation fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the presentation.
72 (72%) – 80 (80%)
The narrated presentation adequately summarizes the evidence-based project. The narrated presentation is professional in nature and adequately addresses the components of the evidence-based project.

The narrated presentation accurately explains how to disseminate the results of the project to an audience; some specific examples may be provided.

The narrated presentation accurately provides a justification for the selection of this dissemination strategy and may be supported by specific examples.

The narrated presentation provides an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the dissemination strategy explained. The narrated presentation integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the presentation.
63 (63%) – 71 (71%)
The narrated presentation vaguely, inaccurately, or incompletely summarizes the evidence-based project. The narrated presentation may be professional in nature and somewhat addresses the components of the evidence-based project.

The narrated presentation inaccurately or vaguely explains how to disseminate the results of the project to an audience; inaccurate or vague examples may be provided.

The narrated presentation inaccurately or vaguely provides a justification for the selection of this dissemination strategy and may be supported by inaccurate or vague examples.

The narrated presentation provides a vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed related to the dissemination strategy explained. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the presentation.
0 (0%) – 62 (62%)
The narrated presentation vaguely and inaccurately summarizes the evidence-based project or is missing. The narrated presentation is not professional in nature and inaccurately and incompletely addresses the components of the evidence-based project or is missing.

The narrated presentation vaguely and inaccurately explains how to disseminate the results of the project to an audience, no examples are provided, or it is missing.

The narrated presentation vaguely and inaccurately provides a justification for the selection of this dissemination strategy, no examples are provided, or it is missing.

The narrated presentation provides a vague and inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed related to the dissemination strategy explained or is missing. The presentation fails to integrate any resources to support the presentation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6052_Module06_Week11_Assignment_Rubric

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.