You must use the rubric
Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of the submission and no more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from sources, even if cited correctly. An originality report is provided when you submit your task that can be used as a guide.
You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.
Note: Research evidence must not be more than five years old.
Note: Upload a copy of the full text of the articles with your submission.
Note: You may use the same topic and research articles on both Task 1: Analyzing Research Articles and Task 2: Evidence-Based Practice Change.
A. Evaluate a primary, quantitative research, peer-reviewed journal article (suggested length of 3–5 pages) that has healthcare implications by doing the following:
Note: You may select an article focusing on a healthcare topic of your choice or an article focusing on one of the following topics: falls and fall prevention, pain management in children, opioid abuse, hepatitis C, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, or hand hygiene and infections in hospitals.
1. Describe how the researcher addresses the following four areas in the selected journal article:
· background or introduction (e.g., the purpose of the study)
· review of the literature (e.g., research used to support the study)
· data analysis (e.g., how the researcher analyzed the data)
· methodology (e.g., research type and sampling methods)
2. Evaluate whether the evidence presented in each of the four areas of the journal article from part A1 supports the outcome of the study and implications for future research.
3. Explain how the protection of human subjects and cultural considerations were addressed by the researcher, using specific information from the journal article from part A.
4. Describe one strength and one limitation of the study.
5. Describe how the evidence from the article in part A informs current nursing practices.
B. Evaluate a primary, qualitative research, peer-reviewed journal article (suggested length of 3–5 pages) that has healthcare implications by doing the following:
Note: You may select an article focusing on a healthcare topic of your choice or an article focusing on one of the following topics: falls and fall prevention, pain management in children, opioid abuse, hepatitis C, catheter associated urinary tract infections, or hand hygiene and infections in hospitals. You may use the same topic that was used in part A.
1. Describe how the researcher addresses the following four areas in the selected journal article:
· background or introduction (e.g., the purpose of the study)
· review of the literature (e.g., research used to support the study)
· data analysis (e.g., how the researcher analyzed the data)
· methodology (e.g., research type and sampling methods)
2. Evaluate whether the evidence presented in each of the four areas of the journal article from part B1 supports the outcome of the study and implications for future research.
3. Explain how the protection of human subjects and cultural considerations were addressed by the researcher, using specific information from the journal article from part B.
4. Identify one strength and one limitation of the study.
5. Describe how the evidence from the article in part B informs current nursing practices.
C. Acknowledge sources, using APA-formatted in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
D. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.
Rubric
A1:A1. Quantitative: Article Areas
| Not Evident An article is not provided. | Approaching Competence Does not identify a primary, quantitative research, peer-reviewed journal article (suggested length of 3–5 pages) that has healthcare implications. The description does not address all of the given points, or the description of any point is not supported by the article. | Competent Identifies a primary, quantitative research, peer-reviewed journal article (suggested length of 3–5 pages) that has healthcare implications. Evaluates the article by doing the following: The description addresses all 4 of the given points, and the description of each point is supported by the article. |
A2:Quantitative: Critique of Evidence
| Not Evident An evaluation of evidence is not provided for each area of the journal article from part A1. | Approaching Competence The evaluation of evidence presented for any area of the journal article from part A1 does not logically show whether that section’s evidence supports the outcome of the study and implications for future research. | Competent The evaluation of evidence presented for each area of the journal article from part A1 logically shows whether that section’s evidence supports the outcome of the study and implications for future research. |
A3:Quantitative: Protection and Considerations
| Not Evident An explanation of how the protection of human subjects and cultural considerations were addressed by the researcher is not provided. | Approaching Competence The explanation does not use specific information from the journal article from part A to show how the protection of human subjects and cultural considerations were addressed by the researcher. | Competent The explanation uses specific information from the journal article from part A to show how the protection of human subjects and cultural considerations were addressed by the researcher. |
A4:Quantitative: Strength and Limitation
| Not Evident A submission is not provided, or the submission does not identify 1 strength or 1 limitation of the study. | Approaching Competence The submission is missing relevant information about the 1 identified strength or the 1 identified limitation of the study. | Competent The submission provides relevant information about the 1 identified strength and the 1 identified limitation of the study. |
