NURS 8201 Week 7 Assignment Article Critique Walden
Sample Answer for NURS 8201 Week 7 Assignment Article Critique Walden Included After Question
Week 7: Quantitative Analysis and Interpretation: Regression
How might you predict future events in your practice? Why is it important, as a future DNP-prepared nurse, to consider such future events?
For a DNP-prepared nurse, future predictions might lead to better patient outcomes and care. Therefore, analyzing factors to predict or evaluate can assist in transforming nursing practice or healthcare delivery. The “statistical procedure most commonly used for prediction is regression analysis” (Gray & Grove, 2020).
This week, you will examine the application of linear regression. You will analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the findings in a research study determined with linear regression, as well as explore alternatives to strengthen the aims of the study. You will also begin work on an Article Critique Assignment. While this Assignment is not due until Week 10, you are encouraged to begin this Assignment this week.
Reference: Gray, J. R., & Grove, S. K. (2020). Burns and Grove’s the practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (9th ed.). Elsevier.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Analyze the use of regression analysis to support peer-reviewed research
- Analyze strengths and weaknesses of research studies*
- Recommend alternative quantitative and statistical methods to support research studies
- Analyze impact of research studies on nursing practice*
- Recommend changes to study designs and methodologies to support research studies*
*Assigned in Week 7 of Module 3 and submitted in Week 10 of Module 4
Learning Resources
Required Readings (click to expand/reduce)
Gray, J. R., & Grove, S. K. (2020). Burns and Grove’s the practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (9th ed.). Elsevier.
- Chapter 24, “Using Statistics to Predict” (pp. 675–686)
Linear Regression Resources (click to expand/reduce)
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8201 Week 7 Assignment Article Critique Walden
Article Critique Resources (click to expand/reduce)
Discussion: Use of Regression Analysis in Clinical Practice
Regression analysis provides the researcher with an opportunity to predict and explore future outcomes. Whether it is to determine prevention methods, promote opportunities for learning, or propose new treatments, looking towards the future can have a significant impact on patient care and sustained positive patient outcomes.
This week, you explore regression analysis, paying particular attention to linear regression. Linear regression is used to “estimate the value of a dependent variable based on the value of an independent variable” (Gray & Grove, 2020). In your Discussion, you will apply your understanding of this statistical technique as it concerns use in a research study.
Photo Credit: wutzkoh / Adobe Stock
For this Discussion, you will select an article on a study to examine the strengths and weaknesses in the use of linear regression. Consider how you might remedy the weaknesses associated with the application of linear regression and reflect on how the findings of the study that you selected might contribute to various areas of your practice.
Reference: Gray, J. R., & Grove, S. K. (2020). Burns and Grove’s the practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (9th ed.). Elsevier.
To Prepare:
- Review the articles in this week’s Learning Resources and evaluate their use of linear regression. Select one article that interests you to examine more closely in this Discussion.
- Critically analyze the article that you selected and consider the strengths and weaknesses described.
- Reflect on potential remedies to address these weaknesses, and how the findings from this study may contribute to evidence-based practice, the field of nursing, or society in general.
By Day 3 of Week 7
Post a brief description of the article that you selected, providing its correct APA citation. Critically analyze the article by addressing the following questions:
- What are the goals and purposes of the research study that the article describes?
- How is linear or logistic regression used in the study? What are the results of its use?
- What other quantitative and statistical methods could be used to address the research issue discussed in the article?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
Then, explain potential remedies to address the weaknesses that you identified for the research article that you selected. Analyze the importance of this study to evidence-based practice, the nursing profession, or society. Be specific and provide examples.
By Day 6 of Week 7
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days in one or more of the following ways:
- Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.
- ·Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
- Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
- Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
- Suggest an alternative perspective based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
- Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 7 Discussion Rubric
Post by Day 3 of Week 7 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 7
To Participate in this Discussion:
Week 7 Discussion
Assignment: Article Critique
DNP graduates are expected to apply research findings and integrate nursing science into evidence-based practice. To develop your skills in this high level of nursing practice, you will analyze the strengths and weaknesses of a research study over the next several weeks using the concepts presented throughout the course.
Photo Credit: ismagilov / iStock / Getty Images
- A brief, 1- to 2-paragraph overview of the study that you selected.
- An explanation of two to three strengths of the study and support for your selection (i.e., why is this a strength?). Be specific.
- An explanation of two to three weaknesses of the study and support for your selection (i.e., why is this a weakness?). Be specific.
- Note: The strengths and weaknesses that you identified should be in relation to design, sampling, data collection, statistical analysis, results, and discussion of the study that you selected.
- An explanation of proposed changes that you would recommend to improve the quality of the study, capitalizing on the strengths and improving on the weaknesses that you identified in the study. Be specific and provide examples.
- A final summary of the implications of this study for nursing practice.
The purpose of the analysis is to help you develop a deeper understanding of the research process, to inspire you to think critically and deeply about research on a specific topic, and to strengthen your ability to integrate research findings into evidence-based nursing practice. This Assignment also gives you practice in analyzing the research literature, which will support you when you begin your DNP project. Before you proceed, please review the rubric for this Assignment. Keep in mind that you will be working on your article critique throughout Weeks 8 through 10 with your critique due by Day 7 of Week 10.
The Assignment: (5–7 pages)
- Select a research article from the body of literature that you have reviewed related to the practice gap you have identified and for which you will develop for your DNP Project.
- Review the various quantitative research designs presented in the textbook readings and research articles.
- Consider the research design used in your selected article. Ask yourself the following questions.
- Is the design appropriate for the study? Why or why not?
- Would a different design provide better results? Why or why not?
You are not required to submit this Assignment this week.
Reminder: The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. The Sample Paper provided at the Walden Writing Center provides an example of those required elements (available at https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates/general#s-lg-box-20293632). All papers submitted must use this formatting.
What’s Coming Up in Week 8?
Photo Credit: [BrianAJackson]/[iStock / Getty Images Plus]/Getty Images
Next week, you will continue your exploration of quantitative data. You will analyze and interpret the use of nonparametric methods for quantitative research and consider the appropriateness of applying nonparametric methods to support your research aims.
A Sample Answer For the Assignment: NURS 8201 Week 7 Assignment Article Critique Walden
Title: NURS 8201 Week 7 Assignment Article Critique Walden
Over the years, research has played an important role in various sectors, healthcare included. In particular, research helps in improving patient outcomes by revealing new and effective strategies that can used to enhance and improve services offered to patients. In addition, research also helps unveil appropriate and relevant strategies that can be used to align workflow in the clinical environment and support the staff to perform to their optimum (Erickson & Pappas, 2020). The implication is that nurses need to understand the research process, as such an aspect can help integrate the research findings into evidence-based practice to enhance patient outcomes. One of the aspects that needs to be adequately understood by the nurses and even DNP students is an analysis of the research literature. Research literature contains valuable information that a researcher may like to use, critique, and appraise before deciding whether the findings are worthy of translation into practice. As such, the purpose of this assignment is to analyze a peer reviewed journal and develop a deeper understanding of the research process.
Overview of the Selected Study
This study focused on a quality improvement project or approach to improving medication reconciliation in the skilled nursing facility setting. The study was conducted as part of a major study known as the Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (Baughman et al.,2021). The research focused on enabling various sites to improve their medication reconciliation using a MARQUIS tool kit, which was an evidence-based guide specifically designed to enhance medication reconciliation. The research was carried out at a 112-bed US Department of Veterans Affairs skilled nursing facility. Various quality improvement methods were developed and used by the researchers. They aspects included healthcare failure mode, process mapping, stakeholder survey, and data benchmarking.
The study considered patients admitted to the long term care and transitional care units, with most of the patients admitted to the facility drawn from the local Veteran Affairs hospitals. In addition, a multi-care team composed of nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians were all included as they offered care to these patients. The analysis of the results revealed important aspects. For example, baseline assessments showed that the medication reconciliation process was error-prone, which led to high rates of medication discrepancies. In addition, the provider process mapping and provider surveys also showed that the process used lacked standards and was extremely labor-intensive (Baughman et al.,2021). Various factors were also found to contribute to such observations, including exposing patients to multiple care transitions, electronic health record limitations, limited resources, and polypharmacy. The researchers found that it is important to use a methodological approach to identify and address the challenges and, use a validated and best possible medication history process, and use additional medication lists to help in accounting for multiple care transitions.
The Strengths of The Study
As part of an article analysis and critique, it is important to explore the strengths of a study; therefore, this section focuses on these strengths. One of the strengths lies in the design and data collection. The authors used comprehensive baseline assessments. For example, they used Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA), process mapping, stakeholder surveys, and data benchmarking. The use of these aspects is a demonstration of a well-designed approach that can help researchers understand the complexities associated with the medication reconciliation processes in a skilled nursing facility setting (Baughman et al.,2021). In addition, the comprehensive design also plays an important role in ensuring that adequate pictures of existing challenges and potential solutions or interventions which can be used for mitigation.
Another strength in the design is the use of validation of the best possible medication practice (BPMH). The validation helps confirm the appropriateness of the BPMH process within the skilled nursing facility context, which further helps in establishing the foundation for implementing evidence-based practices. Besides, the validation is important in ensuring that the intervention is reliable and relevance, which has further been highlighted in the discussion and result sections.
The other strength of this study is that it is based on a data-driven approach as reflected in data collection, statistical analysis, and results. The researchers applied quantitative measures and data benchmarking to assess unintentional medication discrepancies, which is a reflection of a rigorous data-driven approach (Mohajan et al.,2020). The approach is further visible in the statistical analysis and results sections, where the researchers have used objective measures to help quantify the extent of the medication discrepancies. The implication is that by ensuring that the study relies on data, the finding’s generalizability and credibility are enhanced.
The Weaknesses of the Study
It is evident in the previous section that this study has various advantages. However, there are also various weaknesses that may need improvement if a similar study were to be performed. One of the identified weaknesses is the potentially limited generalizability of the study findings. From the methodology section, the researcher reports that this study was conducted at a single 112-bed US Department of Veterans Affairs skilled nursing facility. Therefore, the limited scope of the study site raises questions regarding the generalizability of the findings obtained to other skill nursing facility settings, which could have different organizational structures, staffing levels, and patient populations. The implication is that such a phenomenon weakens the external validity of results, which limits the wider applications of the interventions used in this study (Degtiar & Rose, 2023).
There is also a potential bias in sampling and data collection. The researchers report that the baseline surveys solely relied on the self-reported data from the Skilled nursing facility providers, which introduces a potential response bias (Braun et al.,2021). It is possible that the providers might have been inclined to present a socially desirable or more favorable view of what they do as their usual practice. Such a phenomenon would lead to an underestimation or overestimation of the medication reconciliation challenges, which introduces bias in data collection. The introduction of the data collection bias, in turn, negatively impacts the survey results’ reliability, hence potentially influencing the accuracy of the findings.
This study also has weaknesses in terms of statistical analysis and results. For example, the study did not use a comparative analysis to determine the differences between observations before the intervention period and after the intervention period or pre-intervention and post-intervention phases. Even though the analysis comprehensively identified and highlighted the medication reconciliation challenges when performing the baseline assessments, the researchers ignored any comparative analysis, which could have helped in identifying any changes. Such a lack of comparative analysis limits the possibility of quantifying the impact of the interventions that have been implemented (Dolev-Amit et al.,2021). As such, introducing a comparison would have strengthened the study by showing how impactful the interventions were over time.
Medication errors negatively impact patients. Therefore, the best studies to help solve the problem should at least involve them (Alqenae et al.,2020). However, this study did not consider patient perspectives as part of the study, which significantly denies its strengths related to design. While the study mainly focused on the healthcare providers, it ignored exploring the patient’s perspectives and experiences. Medication reconciliation entails various aspects, such as patient understanding and adherence; as such, their perspectives should have been included. Such perspectives and insights could have offered important information on the implications of medication discrepancies and errors in the care transitions. It is evident that this study has various weaknesses. As such, future research needs to address such weaknesses to improve the methodological robustness.
Proposed Changes to Improve the Quality Of the Study
Part of a comprehensive analysis and critique of research articles requires a proposal for changes that can be made to improve the quality of the study. Such proposed changes can significantly improve the methodological robustness of such studies. One of the identified weaknesses was the potential limited generalizability. Therefore, it is important to explore potential steps that can help eliminate this weakness. Generalizability can be enhanced in similar future studies by expanding the study so that it has multiple skilled nursing facilities with diverse characteristics (Lee et al.,2023). This can be achieved by collaborating with various healthcare systems to help obtain a wider range of populations, care practices, and organizational structures. Indeed, patterning with other skilled nursing facilities located in different regions would ensure the different healthcare delivery models and demographics are represented. In addition, the collaborative approach would help boost the findings’ external validity.
Another weakness identified was on the provider surveys, which could have introduced bias. It is also important to propose a solution for this weakness. One of the solutions is the implementation of objective measures for the provider surveys. As such, it will be important to integrate objective observations and measures with the already existing self-reported data. Such an approach can substantially improve the reliability of the survey results. The implication is that the results will be able to offer a more accurate representation of medication reconciliation practices. This aspect can be achieved by introducing an observational component where the researchers can assess the process of medication reconciliation independently, with a major focus on validating and complementing the self-reported data. The approach would help in enhancing the credibility of the findings.
The other weakness was identified as a lack of a pre- and post-intervention comparative analysis. Therefore, it is important to address this shortcoming; a more robust design that includes a pre-and post-intervention phase should be implemented (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2021). Such an approach would ensure that the researchers can carry out a quantitative assessment of the impact of the implemented interventions or strategies on the medication reconciliation process. Again, this proposed change can be accomplished by establishing a baseline measure of the discrepancies in medication reconciliation, implementing the proposed intervention, and then carrying out a reassessment of medication discrepancies after the implementation of the intervention. Such a comparative analysis can reveal valuable information and insights into how effective the interventions are.
Implications of the Study For Nursing Practice
One of the major reasons why researchers carry out nursing research is to impact nursing practice and patient care positively. Therefore, the findings obtained in various research studies or efforts can be translated into practice to help impact patient practice and patient outcomes positively. Therefore, one area of potential implications would be an improvement in medication reconciliation to help improve patient outcomes related to medication errors, especially those errors that affect veterans. As such, this section focuses on the implications of the study for nursing practice.
One of the implications is that it can lead to enhanced awareness of challenges that face medication reconciliation awareness and knowledge. Through the findings in the study, nurses working in various skilled nursing facilities can benefit from having enhanced awareness regarding the challenges that come with medication reconciliation. Some of them would include the effects of care transitions on medication lists, possible sources of discrepancies, and understanding how complex the process is. Nurses can, therefore, apply such awareness and knowledge to advocate for a better process, more resources, and improved communication that can help improve medication reconciliation (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2021). Besides, the nurses can also educate the caregivers and patients on why it is important to provide accurate and complete medication information during care transitions.
Another implication is that the study can help trigger patient-centered medication reconciliation. It was evident from the study that there is a limited exploration of the patient’s perspectives regarding the medication reconciliation process. As such, it should be recognized that the patients should actively be involved in the reconciliation process to enhance success. Nurses can, therefore, involve patients when discussing matters to do with their medication during the care transitions (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2021). For instance, they can educate patients about why they need to adhere to the medication regimen and treatment plans, offer the patient succinct discharge instructions, and explore and uphold open communication if there are any cases of making medication regimen changes.
Conclusion
This write-up has focused on an analysis of a peer-reviewed journal focusing on reducing medication errors through strategies such as medication reconciliation. The study has various strengths and weaknesses, which have all been explored in this analysis. In addition, this study has various implications for nursing practice, such as the possibility of triggering a patient-centered medication reconciliation to improve patient outcomes.
References
Alqenae, F. A., Steinke, D., & Keers, R. N. (2020). Prevalence and nature of medication errors and medication-related harm following discharge from hospital to community settings: a systematic review. Drug Safety, 43, 517-537. Doi: 10.1007/s40264-020-00918-3
Baughman, A. W., Triantafylidis, L. K., O’Neil, N., Norstrom, J., Okpara, K., Ruopp, M. D., … & Simon, S. R. (2021). Improving medication reconciliation with comprehensive evaluation at a veterans affairs skilled nursing facility. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 47(10), 646–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2021.06.001
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Boulton, E., Davey, L., & McEvoy, C. (2021). The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(6), 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550
Degtiar, I., & Rose, S. (2023). A review of generalizability and transportability. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 10, 501-524. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-042522-103837
Dolev-Amit, T., Rubin, A., & Zilcha-Mano, S. (2021). Is awareness of strengths intervention sufficient to cultivate wellbeing and other positive outcomes?. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22, 645-666.
Erickson, J. I., & Pappas, S. (2020). The value of nursing research. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 50(5), 243-244. Doi: 10.1097/NNA.0000000000000876
Lee, D., Yang, S., Dong, L., Wang, X., Zeng, D., & Cai, J. (2023). Improving trial generalizability using observational studies. Biometrics, 79(2), 1213-1225. https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.13609
LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2021). Nursing research E-book: methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice. Elsevier Health Sciences.
Mohajan, H. K. (2020). Quantitative research: A successful investigation in natural and social sciences. Journal of Economic Development, Environment, and People, 9(4), 50-79. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=939590
Name: NURS_8201_Week10_Assignment2_Rubric
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |||
| Write a 1- to 2-paragraph overview of the study selected. | 23 (7.67%) – 25 (8.33%)
The response accurately and completely provides a detailed overview of the research study selected. |
20 (6.67%) – 22 (7.33%)
The response accurately provides an overview of the research study selected. |
18 (6%) – 19 (6.33%)
The response inaccurately or vaguely provides an overview of the research study selected. |
0 (0%) – 17 (5.67%)
The response inaccurately and vaguely provides an overview of the research study selected, or it is missing. |
||
| Explain two to three strengths of the study and support for your selection. Be specific.
Explain two to three weaknesses of the study and support for your selection. Be specific. |
72 (24%) – 80 (26.67%)
The response accurately and clearly explains in detail two to three strengths of the study. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail two to three weaknesses of the study. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the strengths and weaknesses explained. |
64 (21.33%) – 71 (23.67%)
The response accurately explains two to three strengths of the study. The response accurately explains two to three weaknesses of the study. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the strengths and weaknesses explained. |
56 (18.67%) – 70 (23.33%)
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains two to three strengths of the study. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains two to three weaknesses of the study. OR The response explains <2 strengths and weaknesses. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the strengths and weaknesses explained. |
0 (0%) – 55 (18.33%)
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains two to three strengths of the study, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains two to three weaknesses of the study, or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the strengths weaknesses explained, or it is missing. |
||
| Explain the proposed changes that you would recommend to improve the quality of the study. Capitalize on the strengths to improve on the weaknesses. Be specific and provide examples. | 90 (30%) – 100 (33.33%)
The response comprehensively and fully explains, in detail, the proposed recommended changes to improve the quality of the study. The response accurately and clearly analyzes, in detail, the strengths of the study, in the proposed changes, to capitalize on these strengths. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples to fully support the proposed changes. |
80 (26.67%) – 89 (29.67%)
The response explains the proposed recommended changes to improve the quality of the study. The response analyzes the strengths of the study, in the proposed changes, to capitalize on these strengths. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the proposed changes. |
70 (23.33%) – 79 (26.33%)
The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the proposed recommended changes to improve the quality of the study. The response inaccurately or vaguely analyzes the strengths of the study, in the proposed changes, and may capitalize on these strengths. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the proposed changes. |
0 (0%) – 69 (23%)
The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the proposed recommended changes to improve the quality of the study, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely analyzes the strengths of the study, in the proposed changes, and does not capitalize on these strengths, or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the proposed changes, or it is missing. |
||
| Write a final summary of the implications of this study for nursing practice. | 45 (15%) – 50 (16.67%)
The response accurately and clearly summarizes, in detail, the implications of this study for nursing practice. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the summarized implications. |
40 (13.33%) – 44 (14.67%)
The response accurately summarizes the implications of this study for nursing practice. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the summarized implications. |
35 (11.67%) – 39 (13%)
The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the implications of this study for nursing practice. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the summarized implications. |
0 (0%) – 34 (11.33%)
The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the implications of this study for nursing practice, or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the summarized implications, or it 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. |
15 (5%) – 15 (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. |
12 (4%) – 12 (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. |
10.5 (3.5%) – 10.5 (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. |
0 (0%) – 10 (3.33%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 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 |
15 (5%) – 15 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. |
12 (4%) – 12 (4%)
Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
10.5 (3.5%) – 10.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
0 (0%) – 10 (3.33%)
Contains many (≥ 5) 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, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. | 15 (5%) – 15 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors. |
12 (4%) – 12 (4%)
Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. |
10.5 (3.5%) – 10.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. |
0 (0%) – 10 (3.33%)
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. |
||
| Total Points: 300 | ||||||
Name: NURS_8201_Week10_Assignment2_Rubric
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:
|
Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three or more of the following elements
|
| 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:
|
Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in the all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three of the following elements
|
| 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:
|
Demonstrated 3 of the following:
|
Demonstrated 2 of the following:
|
Demonstrated 1 or less of the following:
|
||
| 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:
AND
AND
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
| 0 Points Deducted | 5 Points Lost | |||||
| Participation
Requirements |
Demonstrated the following:
|
Failed to demonstrate the following:
|
||||
| 0 Points Lost | 5 Points Lost | |||||
| Due Date Requirements | Demonstrated all of the following:
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.
A minimum of one peer and one instructor responses are to be posted within the course no later than Sunday, 11:59 pm MT. |