2806NRS Evidence-Based Nursing
A3 Written Assignment – Critical EvaluationMarketing Research and Data Analysis
1500 words, weighting 50 %; marked out of 50
Due Date: see course profile.
Aim
In this summative assessment item, you will have the opportunity to build on the skills developed in A2 Annotated Bibliography to assist you to critically evaluate a journal article. It is expected you will refer to the feedback received in A2 Annotated Bibliography to support the development of the skills and knowledge to implement evidence-based nursing.
This assessment item will assess –
Learning Outcome 2: Summarise research articles, including their methodology and their contribution of the research to nursing practice; and
Learning Outcome 3: Evaluate the credibility of information produced from research studies.
Instructions
For this assessment, you need to write a 1500-word in which you critically evaluate the supplied journal article (see below) and discuss its relevance to clinical nursing practice.
Specifically, in your report you need to:
-
Accurately identify and explain the different elements of the research process evident in the article.
-
Critically evaluate the research elements using the critical appraisal template with reference to recent, relevant, and scholarly literature.
-
Discuss the significant implications of research for contemporary nursing practice and standards of care.
You must include a MINIMUM of 10 references to support your Critical Evaluation.
You must use the following headings to structure your report. You do not submit this template but use it to plan your essay.
|
Introduction
|
|
PICO
|
Complete this table
|
|
What is the problem/
population?
|
|
|
What is the intervention?
|
|
|
What is the Comparator?
|
|
|
What is the primary outcome?
|
|
|
What is the secondary outcome/s?
|
|
|
|
|
Journal and Authors
|
Present an overview of this journal.
Is it a good journal? e.g., impact factor
In what country is the journal published?
Are the authors experts in the field?
Why is it a useful article for the reader?
|
|
Title, abstract and literature review
|
|
|
a. Is the title appropriate? e.g., is the title consistent with the text?
b. Is the abstract informative? e.g., aims, research method, participants, data collection, data analysis, findings?
c. Were the aims and/or objectives clearly stated?
c. Is the literature cited in the background/literature review current, relevant and comprehensive?
|
|
Research Design
|
|
|
a. What type of mixed method design was used? What rationale is provided for adopting a mixed-method approach?
b. Are the research question/s clear?
c. Were the need for the study stated?
e. Describe how the intervention(s) was carried out?
|
|
The sample
|
|
|
a. What was the sample of interest?
b. Identify and describe the setting of the study. Hospital, home, community etc.
c. How were the participants accessed and recruited?
|
|
Data collection
|
|
|
a. What data was collected? What outcome/s were measured? Are the data collection strategies appropriate for the research question?
b. What tools were used to collect the data (surveys, questionnaires, or other data collection tools)? e.g., do the tools used reflect the purpose of the study?
c. Who collected the data and how?
d. Did the study have ethical clearance?
|
|
Data Analysis
|
|
|
a. How were the quantitative results reported in this study?
b. How were the qualitative findings used to support the quantitative results?
c. How were the data analysed?
d. Is the analysis technique effectively answer the research question?
|
|
Results
|
|
|
-
Do the different components of the study effectively answer the research questions?
-
How was the data presented? |
|
Conclusion
|
|
|
a. What was the most important finding? e.g., ask yourself the so what question?
b. Were implications for healthcare/practice suggested?
|
|
Relevance to nursing practice
|
|
a. Patient values e.g., did the patients find it useful? Do they accept it? Are there negative impacts/positive outcomes for patients?
b. Clinical expertise e.g., would it be useful in other clinical contexts? If the context changes, is the response or evidence-based practice still usable?
c. Available evidence e.g., does it support other available evidence/ research studies?
|
Please note that the suggested word count for each section of your report is approximate.
PICO, journal quality (50 words)
Title, Abstract and Literature Review (150 words)
Research Design (250 words)
The Sample (150 words)
Data Collection (200 words)
Data Analysis (150 words)
Results (150 words)
Conclusion (150 words)
Relevance to clinical nursing practice (250 words)
You need to include a reference list (not included in word count) on a separate page.
Journal Article:
Rheault, H., Coyer, F., & Bonner, A. (2021). Chronic disease health literacy in First Nations people: A mixed methods study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 30(17-18), 2683-2695. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15757
Other elements:
You need to adhere strictly to the word limit of 1500 words. The word limit for an assessment item includes in-text citations, tables and quotations. The word limit DOES NOT include the reference list. Please note the marker will cease marking your submitted work once they have reached the allocated word limit.
Always refer to the Griffith Health Writing and Referencing Guide. Ensure your assignment format strictly adheres to these guidelines.
Ensure that you use scholarly literature (digitized readings, research articles, relevant Government reports and textbooks) that have been published within the last five [5] years (between 2018– 2023 (inclusive). You must include a MINIMUM of 10 references to support your Critical Evaluation.
Use the APA 7 referencing style.
You may use headings to organise your report.
Unless otherwise instructed, write in the third person.
Use academic language throughout.
Refer to the marking rubric when writing your assignment. This will assist you in calculating the weightings of the sections for your assignment.
2806NRS Evidence-Based Nursing – A3 Critical Evaluation MARKING RUBRIC
|
Assessable Elements
|
EXEMPLARY
Exceptionally high quality of performance or standard of learning achievement.
|
ACCOMPLISHED
High quality performance or standard of learning achievement.
|
DEVELOPING
Satisfactory quality of performance or standard of learning achievement.
|
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory quality of performance or standard of learning achievement.
|
TOTAL MARK
|
| Criterion One
Accurately identify and explain the different elements of the research process that are evident in the article. |
Exceptionally high standard as evidenced by an accurate identification and comprehensive explanation of all the elements of the research process that are evident in the article; multiple, specific examples and references to the article support the explanation.
|
High standard as evidenced by an accurate identification and broad explanation of a range of elements of the research process that are evident in the article; explanation is supported by examples from the article.
|
Satisfactory standard as evidenced by an accurate identification and sufficient explanation of the different elements of the research process that are evident in the article; there may be some general discussion about research without reference to the elements evident in the article.
|
Unsatisfactory standard as evidenced by inaccurate identification of the different elements of the research process that are evident in the article. Explanation of elements of the research process is inadequate or vague/too general
|
/10
|
| Mark allocation |
10-8
|
8-6
|
6-4
|
4-0
|
| Criterion Two
Critically evaluate the research elements using the appraisal template/guide. |
Exceptionally high standard as evidenced by a critical and
comprehensive evaluation of all the research elements using the appraisal guide.
|
High standard as evidenced by a broad evaluation of
the research elements using the appraisal guide.
|
Satisfactory standard as evidenced by a brief but sufficient evaluation of
the research elements using the appraisal guide.
|
Unsatisfactory standard as evidenced by a flawed evaluation of
the research elements using the guide.
|
/10
|
| Mark allocation |
10-8
|
8-6
|
6-4
|
4-0
|
| Criterion Three
Discuss the significant implications of the research for contemporary nursing practice and standards of care. |
Exceptionally high standard as evidenced by an insightful and comprehensive discussion that includes multiple relevant examples regarding the significant implications of the research for contemporary nursing practice and standards of care.
|
High standard as evidenced by a broad discussion supported by a range of examples regarding the significant implications of the research for contemporary nursing practice and standards of care.
|
Satisfactory standard as evidenced by a brief but sufficient discussion with some examples regarding the significant implications of the research for contemporary nursing practice and standards of care.
|
Unsatisfactory standard as evidenced by an underdeveloped discussion with too few examples regarding the significant implications of the research for contemporary nursing practice and standards of care.
|
/10
|
| Mark allocation |
10-8
|
8-6
|
6-4
|
4-0
|
| Criterion Four
Use of the literature |
Exceptionally high standard as evidenced by synthesis and accurate integration of a wide range of high quality, credible evidence to support ideas that are relevant to the topic.
|
High standard as evidenced by synthesis and integration of a range of good quality, credible evidence to support ideas that are relevant to the topic.
|
Satisfactory standard as evidenced by synthesis or analysis and integration of some quality, credible evidence to support ideas that are relevant to the topic.
|
Unsatisfactory standard as evidenced by a lack of synthesis and integration of poor-quality evidence resulting a lack of support for ideas that may not be relevant to the topic.
|
/8
|
| Mark allocation |
8-6
|
6-4
|
4-2
|
2-0
|
| Criterion Five
Presentation, grammar and academic writing |
Exemplary demonstration of academic writing standards.
Exemplary sentence and paragraph structure, with few, if any errors, exemplary and overall logical flow, that indicates a sophisticated ability to communicate ideas effectively.
|
Sufficient demonstration of academic writing standards.
Appropriate sentence and paragraph structure, with some error and overall logical flow, that indicates an effective ability to communicate ideas effectively.
|
Some attempt to comply with academic writing standards.
Developing sentence and paragraph structure, and/or there are some errors that disrupt the logical flow or communication of ideas.
|
Does not comply with academic writing standards.
Poor sentence and paragraph structure, and poor logical flow demonstrates an inability to communicate ideas effectively.
|
/8
|
| Mark allocation |
8-6
|
6-4
|
4-2
|
2-0
|
| Criterion Six
Referencing |
Exceptionally high standard as evidenced by exemplary use of APA 7 format in-text and reference list with no errors.
|
High standard as evidenced by the consistent use of APA 7 format in-text and reference list with minimal errors.
|
Satisfactory standard as evidenced by the developing use of APA 7 format in-text and reference list, but with several errors.
|
Unsatisfactory standard as evidenced by the beginning or absent use of APA 7 format in-text and reference list with many errors.
|
/4
|
| Mark allocation |
4-3
|
3-2
|
2-1
|
1-0
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
/50
|
Tags:
assignmentexpert,
assignmenthelp,
assignmenthelpaustralia,
assignmenthelper,
assignmenthelpuk,
assignmenthelpusa,
assignmentwriting,
bestpriceguaranteed,
bestqualityguaranteed,
london🇬🇧,
myassignmenthelp,
plagiarismfreework
