Walden University - NURS 6052 Assignment Critical Appraisal of Research

Walden University – NURS 6052 Assignment Critical Appraisal of Research Assignment

Walden University – NURS 6052 Assignment 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 NURS 6052 Assignment Critical Appraisal of Research Assignment:

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.

Top nursing paper writers on hand to assist you with NURS 6052 Assignment Critical Appraisal of Research

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.

NURS 6052 Assignment Critical Appraisal of Research 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.

NURS 6052 Week 7 Assignment Evidence-Based Project, Part 3 Critical Appraisal of Research

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.

Get Assistance With Your Nursing Assignment

Name: NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment Critical Appraisal of Research Rubric

	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

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

Name: NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric

24/7 Nursing Homework Help

Stuck with your nursing assignment? From Essays to Complicated Dissertations? Our accredited nursing paper writers can answer it all!

Walden University – NURS 6052 Assignment Critical Appraisal of Research