Want create site? With Free visual composer you can do it easy.

NURS 8114 Components of Evidence-Based Practice: Grading the Evidence

NURS 8114 Components of Evidence-Based Practice: Grading the Evidence

 

What grade would you require of evidence to justify a practice change? Must it be an A or a solid 100? Would B+ or, say, 90, be enough? How would you attach a grading equivalent to the evidence you have appraised?

This final component of evidence-based practice does not require literally assigning a grade. However, it does involve evaluating what level of evidence in quantity and quality can justify a particular practice change, and the time, effort, and expense of a quality improvement initiative. Each situation and grading scale may be different depending on the specific practice problem, the potential outcomes, the urgency of the problem, and the attitudes—encouraging or uncompromising—of the stakeholders.

This week you complete this module with a critical assessment of the evidence from your literature review. Both in your Discussion with colleagues and your module Assignment, the strength and substance of what links your practice problem, evidence to address it, and the need for a practice change initiative, will be yours to explain and grade.

Learning Objectives

Students will:

  • Evaluate scholarly articles for a literature review
    NURS 8114 Components of Evidence-Based Practice Grading the Evidence

    NURS 8114 Components of Evidence-Based Practice Grading the Evidence

  • Analyze scholarly literature for evidence
  • Evaluate quality of evidence to inform practice change
  • Synthesize research to support nursing practice problems
  • Synthesize evidence to inform practice change
  • Justify quality improvement/practice change initiatives

Learning Resources

Required Readings (click to expand/reduce)

 

White, K. M., Dudley-Brown, S., & Terhaar, M. F. (Eds.). (2019). Translation of evidence into nursing and healthcare (3rd ed.). Springer.

  • Chapter 5, “Translation of Evidence for Improving Quality and Safety” (pp. 103–123)

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Synthesizing your sources. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/assignments/literaturereview/synthesizing

 

(Review from Weeks 8 and 9)

Westlake, C. (2012). Practical tips for literature synthesis. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 26(5), 244–249. https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0b013e318263d766

 

(Review from Weeks 8 and 9)

Optional Resources (click to expand/reduce)

 

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Webinars: Scholarly writing. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/webinars/scholarlywriting#s-lg-box-9094031

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Writing as a process. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/doctoral/capstone/preproposal/writingasaprocess

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8114 Components of Evidence-Based Practice: Grading the Evidence

 

Rubric Detail

 

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NURS_8114_Week10_Discussion_Rubric

  Excellent

90%–100%

Good

80%–89%

Fair

70%–79%

Poor

0%–69%

Main Posting:

Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s).

Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three current credible sources.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to most of the Discussion question(s).

Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible references.

31 (31%) – 34 (34%)

Responds to some of the Discussion question(s).

One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Cited with fewer than two credible references.

0 (0%) – 30 (30%)

Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only one or no credible references.

Main Posting:

Writing

6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely.

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely.

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Written somewhat concisely.

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Not written clearly or concisely.

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Main Posting:

Timely and full participation

9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts main Discussion by due date.

8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts main Discussion by due date.

7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Posts main Discussion by due date.

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post main Discussion by due date.

First Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.

9 (9%) – 9 (9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Responds to questions posed by faculty.

The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

First Response:
Writing
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.

Response is written in standard, edited English.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Response to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

First Response:
Timely and full participation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts by due date.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts by due date.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post by due date.

Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Responds to questions posed by faculty.

The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Second Response:
Writing
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.

Response is written in standard, edited English.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Response to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response:
Timely and full participation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts by due date.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts by due date.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post by due date.

Total Points: 100

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8114 Components of Evidence-Based Practice: Grading the Evidence

 

 

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.