Requirements
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. |
A5:Quantitative: Evidence Application
| Not Evident
A submission is not provided. |
Approaching Competence
The submission does not describe how the evidence from the article in part A informs current nursing practices. Or the description is not supported with specific examples of currently used nursing practices. |
Competent
The submission accurately describes how the evidence from the article in part A informs current nursing practices. The description is supported with specific examples of currently used nursing practices. |
B1:Qualitative: Article Areas
| Not Evident
An article is not provided. |
Approaching Competence
Does not identify a primary, qualitative 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, qualitative 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. |
B2:Qualitative: Critique of Evidence
| Not Evident
An evaluation of evidence is not provided for each area of the journal article from part B1. |
Approaching Competence
The evaluation of evidence presented for any area of the journal article from part B1 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 B1 logically shows whether that section’s evidence supports the outcome of the study and implications for future research. |
B3:Qualitative: 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 B 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 B to show how the protection of human subjects and cultural considerations were addressed by the researcher. |
B4:Qualitative: 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. |
B5:Qualitative: Evidence Application
| Not Evident
A submission is not provided. |
Approaching Competence
The submission does not describe how the evidence from the article in part B informs current nursing practices. Or the description is not supported with specific examples of currently used nursing practices. |
Competent
The submission describes how the evidence from the article in part B informs current nursing practices. The description is supported with specific examples of currently used nursing practices. |
C.:APA Sources
| Not Evident
The submission does not include in-text citations and references according to APA style for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized. |
Approaching Competence
The submission includes in-text citations and references for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized but does not demonstrate a consistent application of APA style. |
Competent
The submission includes in-text citations and references for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and demonstrates a consistent application of APA style. |
| Not Evident
Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic. |
Approaching Competence
Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective. |
Competent
Content reflects attention to detail, is organized, and focuses on the main ideas as prescribed in the task or chosen by the candidate. Terminology is pertinent, is used correctly, and effectively conveys the intended meaning. Mechanics, usage, and grammar promote accurate interpretation and understanding. |