Assignment 2.1: Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools

Assignment 2.1: Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools

Sample Answer for Assignment 2.1: Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools Included After Question

Assignment 2.1: Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools

Value: 60 points

Introduction

Your organization has set a goal to expand the use of web-based tools for their patients for your unit. As a DNP leader, you are tasked with the responsibility of selecting a web-based platform to support and improve client care within your unit at your facility. Through the lens of usability, evaluate one consumer healthcare website, consumer eHealth program aim, or electronic web-based intervention tool that you might use with your client population. Create a written proposal with your recommendation to the board.

Assignment 2.1: Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools
Assignment 2.1: Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools

Assignment Guidelines

Part I: Research and Identification

Step 1: Gather user experience and usability information.

  • Review User Experience Honeycomb.
  • Links to an external site.
  • Review Usability Evaluation Basics.
  • Links to an external site.

Step 2: Identify one specific web-based tool to evaluate.

Types of web-based platforms include:

  • Consumer healthcare websites
  • Consumer eHealth program aims
  • Web-based intervention tools (Do not include e-visit or telecommunication tools as they were covered in the discussion posting.)

Part II: Written Proposal

Step 3: Evaluate one web-based platform.

  • Describe the client population.
  • Explain the type of web-based platform you would advise to support the care delivery.
  • Evaluate one consumer healthcare website, consumer eHealth program aim, or electronic intervention tool you might use with your patient population.
    • Evaluate for the balance between context, content, and user needs.
    • Describe the user’s experience:
      • Usefulness, Desirability, Findability, Accessibility, Credibility (and accuracy), and Value.
      • Calculate the readability level. (Select a site for calculating readability; there are many such sites out there.)
      • Advise on usability. Although you can’t complete the testing, you can address design, ease of learning, efficiency of use, memorability, and potential error frequency.
      • Appraise how well the sites support consumers’ healthcare needs.
    • Provide an overall summary of the pros and cons of the site.

Assignment 2.1: Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools

Formatting and Mechanics

  • Utilize APA formatting and style.
  • Submit your paper as a Word document that includes the content for the proposal.

Submission

Submit your assignment and review full grading criteria on the Assignment 2.1: Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools page.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: Assignment 2.1: Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: Assignment 2.1: Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools

Title: Assignment 2.1: Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools

Week 2 Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools Rubric
Week 2 Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
Introduction
5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectations (>4 to5 Points)

Introduction gives is clear and concise, introducing the situation to the reader.

4 to >3 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations (>3 to 4 Points)

Introduction is brief and/or unfocused.

3 to >2 pts
Barely Meets Expectations (>2 to3 Points)

Introduction is vague or disorganized.

2 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations (0 to2 Points)

Introduction is confusing, lacks flow, and/or misleads the reader.

Comments

The title of the paper should be the first line of text in the body of the paper, the word “Introduction” should not be included. See page 39 of APA 7th edition.
5 / 5 pts
Background
5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectations (>4 to5 Points)

A clear and concise explanation of the client population and type of web-based tool are given and described fully and succinctly.

4 to >3 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations (>3 to 4 Points)

Client population and HIT described fully but not succinctly.

3 to >2 pts
Barely Meets Expectations (>2 to3 Points)

Client population or HIT not described fully.

2 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations (0 to2 Points)

Client population or HIT not clearly described.
5 / 5 pts
Assessment
30 to >27 pts
Meets Expectations (>27 to 30 Points)

Clearly and concisely evaluates HIT: -Evaluates the balance between context, content, and the user’s needs. -Describes the user’s experience, including usefulness, desirability, findability, accessibility, credibility, and value. -In terms of usability, addresses design, ease of learning, the efficiency of use, memorability, and the potential error frequency. Utilizes user experience and usability information as well as assigned readings.

27 to >25 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations (>25 to 27 Points)

HIT evaluated fully but not succinctly. Utilizes user experience and usability information, but not assigned readings.

25 to >22 pts
Barely Meets Expectations (>22 to 25 Points)

HIT evaluated fully but not succinctly. Utilizes user experience, but usability information is not used as directed.

22 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations (0 to 22 Points)

HIT evaluation is incomplete. Utilizes user experience, but usability information not used as directed and assigned readings are not included.

Comments

You did a good job with evaluating some aspects of the user experience but didn’t evaluate all aspects of the user experience. Always check rubric before submitting assignments so you don’t miss any required elements.
25 / 30 pts
Readability
5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectations (>4 to5 Points)

Reading level calculated and applied to patient population. Source sited.

4 to >3 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations (>3 to 4 Points)

Reading level calculated and patient population identified. Source sited.

3 to >2 pts
Barely Meets Expectations (>2 to 3 Points)

Reading level calculated. Source sited.

2 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations (0 to 2 Points)

Not calculated (0). Source not sited or non-reliable source used.

Comments

Don’t include screenshots within your paper. If you want to include tables and figures, review chapter 7 in APA’s 7th edition for information on how to add them in APA style. You didn’t cite the source you used to determine the readability level of this webtool.
2 / 5 pts
Appraisal
5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectations (>4 to5 Points)

Appraises how well the site supports consumers’ healthcare needs. Provides pros and cons.

4 to >3 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations (>3 to 4 Points)

Appraised but not succinctly. Pros and cons are unclear.

3 to >2 pts
Barely Meets Expectations (>2 to 3 Points)

Appraised but not thoroughly or may lack pros or cons.

2 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations (0 to 2 Points)

Lacks appraisal or pros/cons.
5 / 5 pts
Recommendation
10 to >9 pts
Meets Expectations (>9 to 10 Points)

Recommendation for HIT is supported by strong evidence, and includes value to providers and patients.

9 to >8 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations (>8 to 9 Points)

Support is given for recommendation, including assigned readings.

8 to >7 pts
Barely Meets Expectations (>7 to 8 Points)

Weak support is given for recommendation or assigned readings are not included.

7 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations (0 to 7 Points)

Support is lacking for recommendation or assigned readings are not included.
10 / 10 pts
APA style
0 pts
1. (No Deduction)

Written clearly and concisely. No errors in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation.

0 pts
2. (5% Deduction) -3 points

Written clearly and concisely. Few errors in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are noted.

0 pts
3. (8% Deduction) -5 points

Written clearly. Several errors in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are found.

0 pts
4. (10% Deduction) -6 points

Writing is unclear and/or rambling or brief. Numerous distracting errors in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are found.

Comments

Missing date in the in-text citation at the bottom of page 3 from Journal of Medical Internet Research.
Review how to cite sources on the Reference page in chapters 9 and 10 in APA 7th edition. You have the source in sentence case when it should be in title case in your first source. The first word after a colon should be capitalized in sentence case, see page 168 of APA.
0 / 0 pts
Total Points: 52

Grading Rubric

Performance Category 100% or highest level of performance

100%

16 points

 Very good or high level of performance

88%

14 points

 Acceptable level of performance

81%

13 points

 Inadequate demonstration of expectations

68%

11 points

 Deficient level of performance

56%

9 points

 

 Failing level

of performance

55% or less

0 points
 Total Points Possible= 50           16 Points    14 Points 13 Points        11 Points           9 Points          0 Points
Scholarliness

Demonstrates achievement of scholarly inquiry for professional and academic topics.

 Presentation of information was exceptional and included all of the following elements:

  • Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s).
  • Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts.
  • Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.*
  • Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.
 Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements:

  • Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s).
  • Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts.
  • Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.*
  • Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.
 Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in all of the following elements:

  • Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s).
  • Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts.
  • Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.*
  • Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.
  

Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements:

  • Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s).
  • Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts.
  • Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.*
  • Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.
  

Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements:

  • Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s).
  • Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts.
  • Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.*
  • Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.
 Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three or more of the following elements

  • Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s).
  • Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts.
  • Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.*
  • Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information
 16 Points  14 Points  13 Points 11 Points 9 Points  0 Points
Application of Course Knowledge

Demonstrate the ability to analyze and apply principles, knowledge and information learned in the outside readings and relate them to real-life professional situations

 Presentation of information was exceptional and included all of the following elements:

  • Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic.
  • Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from scholarly resources to a professional experience.
  • Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
 Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements:

  • Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic.
  • Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from scholarly resources to a professional experience.
  • Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
 Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in the all of the following elements:

  • Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic.
  • Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from scholarly resources to a professional experience.
  • Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
 Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements:

  • Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic.
  • Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from and scholarly resources to a professional experience.
  • Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
 Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements:

  • Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic.
  • Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from scholarly resources to a professional experience.
  • Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
 Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three of the following elements

  • Applies principles, knowledge and information and scholarly resources to the required topic.
  • Applies facts, principles or concepts learned scholarly resources to a professional experience.
  • Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
   10 Points 9 Points  6 Points  0 Points
Interactive Dialogue

Initial post should be a minimum of 300 words (references do not count toward word count)

The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each (references do not count toward word count)

Responses are substantive and relate to the topic.

 Demonstrated all of the following:

  • Initial post must be a minimum of 300 words.
  • The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each.
  • Responses are substantive
  • Responses are related to the topic of discussion.
 Demonstrated 3 of the following:

  • Initial post must be a minimum of 300 words.
  • The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each.
  • Responses are substantive
  • Responses are related to the topic of discussion.
 Demonstrated 2 of the following:

  • Initial post must be a minimum of 300 words.
  • The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each.
  • Responses are substantive
  • Responses are related to the topic of discussion.
 Demonstrated 1 or less of the following:

  • Initial post must be a minimum of 300 words.
  • The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each.
  • Responses are substantive
  • Responses are related to the topic of discussion.
  8 Points 7 Points  6 Points         5 Points          4 Points  0 Points
Grammar, Syntax, APA

Points deducted for improper grammar, syntax and APA style of writing.

The source of information is the APA Manual 6th Edition

Error is defined to be a unique APA error. Same type of error is only counted as one error.

 The following was present:

  • 0-3 errors in APA format

AND

  • Responses have 0-3 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors

AND

  • Writing style is generally clear, focused on topic,and facilitates communication.
 The following was present:

  • 4-6 errors in APA format.

AND/OR

  • Responses have 4-5 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors

AND/OR

  • Writing style is somewhat focused on topic.
 The following was present:

  • 7-9 errors in APA format.

AND/OR

  • Responses have 6-7 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors

AND/OR

  • Writing style is slightly focused on topic making discussion difficult to understand.
  

The following was present:

  • 10- 12 errors in APA format

AND/OR

  • Responses have 8-9 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors

AND/OR

  • Writing style is not focused on topic, making discussion difficult to understand.
  

The following was present:

  • 13 – 15 errors in APA format

AND/OR

  • Responses have 8-10 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors

AND/OR

  • Writing style is not focused on topic, making discussion difficult to understand.

AND/OR

  • The student continues to make repeated mistakes in any of the above areas after written correction by the instructor.
 The following was present:

  • 16 to greater errors in APA format.

AND/OR

  • Responses have more than 10 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.

AND/OR

  • Writing style does not facilitate communication
  0 Points Deducted 5 Points Lost
Participation

Requirements

Demonstrated the following:

  • Initial, peer, and faculty postings were made on 3 separate days
 Failed to demonstrate the following:

  • Initial, peer, and faculty postings were made on 3 separate days
  0 Points Lost 5 Points Lost
Due Date Requirements Demonstrated all of the following:

  • The initial posting to the graded threaded discussion topic is posted within the course no later than Wednesday, 11:59 pm MT.

A minimum of one peer and one instructor responses are to be posted within the course no later than Sunday, 11:59 pm MT.

Demonstrates one or less of the following.

  • The initial posting to the graded threaded discussion topic is posted within the course no later than Wednesday, 11:59 pm MT.

A minimum of one peer and one instructor responses are to be posted within the course no later than Sunday, 11:59 pm MT.