https:\/\/lopes.idm.oclc.org\/login?url=https:\/\/www-proquest-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org\/scholarly-journals\/evidence-based-practice-educational-intervention\/docview\/2089734479\/se-2?accountid=7374<\/a><\/p>\nEvidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice<\/p>\n
Read Chapter 4 and review Chapter 3 in\u00a0Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice.<\/em><\/p>\nView Resource<\/p>\n
Advanced Nursing Research: From Theory to Practice<\/p>\n
Review Chapter 25 in\u00a0Advanced Nursing Research: From Theory to Practice.<\/em><\/p>\nView Resource<\/p>\n
Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal: Evaluation Plan – Rubric<\/strong><\/h3>\nCollapse All<\/p>\n
Expected Outcomes for Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal<\/strong><\/h3>\n14.4\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/strong><\/h3>\nExpected Outcomes for Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal<\/p>\n
\n- 5: Excellent<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
14.4\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Expected outcomes for the evidence-based practice project proposal are discussed. Thorough explanations and strong supporting research are provided.<\/p>\n
\n- 4: Good<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
13.25\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Expected outcomes for the evidence-based practice project proposal are discussed. Some detail is needed for clarity or support.<\/p>\n
\n- 3: Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
12.67\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Expected outcomes for the evidence-based practice project proposal are summarized. More information is needed.<\/p>\n
\n- 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
11.52\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Some expected outcomes for the evidence-based practice project proposal are only partially outlined.<\/p>\n
\n- 1: Unsatisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Expected outcomes for the evidence-based practice project proposal are not discussed.<\/p>\n
Data Collection Tools<\/strong><\/h3>\n12\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/strong><\/h3>\nData Collection Tools<\/p>\n
\n- 5: Excellent<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
12\u00a0points<\/p>\n
A data collection tool is selected and a well-supported explanation for why the tool is valid, reliable, and applicable and would be effective for the research design is presented.<\/p>\n
\n- 4: Good<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
11.04\u00a0points<\/p>\n
A data collection tool is selected, and an explanation for why the tool would be effective for the research design is presented. An explanation for the tool is valid, reliable, and applicable. Some detail is needed for clarity or support.<\/p>\n
\n- 3: Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
10.56\u00a0points<\/p>\n
A data collection tool is selected, and a summary for why the tool would be effective for the research design is presented. A general explanation for the tool is valid, reliable, and applicable, but more information and support are needed.<\/p>\n
\n- 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
9.6\u00a0points<\/p>\n
A data collection tool is selected, but it is unclear why the tool would be effective for the research design. A valid, reliable, and applicable explanation for the tool is incomplete.<\/p>\n
\n- 1: Unsatisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
A data collection tool is not discussed.<\/p>\n
Statistical Test for Project<\/strong><\/h3>\n12\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/strong><\/h3>\nStatistical Test for Project<\/p>\n
\n- 5: Excellent<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
12\u00a0points<\/p>\n
A statistical test is selected, and a well-supported explanation for why the test is best suited for the tool is clearly presented.<\/p>\n
\n- 4: Good<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
11.04\u00a0points<\/p>\n
A statistical test is selected, and an explanation for why the test is best suited for the tool is presented. Some detail is needed for clarity or support.<\/p>\n
\n- 3: Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
10.56\u00a0points<\/p>\n
A statistical test is selected, and a summary for why the test is best suited for the tool is presented. More information or support is needed.<\/p>\n
\n- 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
9.6\u00a0points<\/p>\n
A statistical test is selected, but it is unclear why the test is best suited for the tool.<\/p>\n
\n- 1: Unsatisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
A statistical test is omitted.<\/p>\n
Methods Applied to Data Collection Tool<\/strong><\/h3>\n12\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/strong><\/h3>\nMethods Applied to Data Collection Tool<\/p>\n
\n- 5: Excellent<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
12\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Methods that will be applied to the data collection are thoroughly discussed. A discussion of how the outcomes will be measured and evaluated based on the tool selected are presented.<\/p>\n
\n- 4: Good<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
11.04\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Methods that will be applied to the data collection are discussed. A discussion of how the outcomes will be measured and evaluated based on the tool selected is presented. Some detail is needed for clarity or support.<\/p>\n
\n- 3: Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
10.56\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Methods that will be applied to the data collection are outlined. A summary of how the outcomes will be measured and evaluated based on the tool selected is presented. More information or support is needed.<\/p>\n
\n- 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
9.6\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Methods that will be applied to the data collection tool partially discussed. It is unclear how the outcomes will be measured and evaluated based on the tool selected.<\/p>\n
\n- 1: Unsatisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Methods that will be applied to the data collection tool are not discussed.<\/p>\n
Strategies for Outcomes That Are Nonpositive<\/strong><\/h3>\n14.4\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/strong><\/h3>\nStrategies for Outcomes That Are Nonpositive<\/p>\n
\n- 5: Excellent<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
14.4\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Strategies for nonpositive outcomes are presented. Some detail is needed for clarity or support.<\/p>\n
\n- 4: Good<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
13.25\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Clear and well-supported strategies for nonpositive outcomes are presented.<\/p>\n
\n- 3: Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
12.67\u00a0points<\/p>\n
General strategies for nonpositive outcomes are presented. More information and support are needed.<\/p>\n
\n- 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
11.52\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Strategies for nonpositive outcomes are incomplete.<\/p>\n
\n- 1: Unsatisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Strategies for nonpositive outcomes are not discussed.<\/p>\n
Plans to Maintain, Extend, Revise, and Discontinue Proposed Solution<\/strong><\/h3>\n13.2\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/strong><\/h3>\nPlans to Maintain, Extend, Revise, and Discontinue Proposed Solution<\/p>\n
\n- 5: Excellent<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
13.2\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Detailed and well-supported plans to maintain, extend, revise, and discontinue a proposed solution after implementation are presented.<\/p>\n
\n- 4: Good<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
12.14\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Plans to maintain, extend, revise, and discontinue a proposed solution after implementation are presented. Some detail is needed for clarity or support.<\/p>\n
\n- 3: Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
11.62\u00a0points<\/p>\n
General plans to maintain, extend, revise, and discontinue a proposed solution after implementation are presented. More information and support are needed.<\/p>\n
\n- 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
10.56\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Plans to maintain, extend, revise, and discontinue a proposed solution after implementation are incomplete.<\/p>\n
\n- 1: Unsatisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Plans to maintain, extend, revise, and discontinue a proposed solution after implementation are not discussed.<\/p>\n
Required Sources<\/strong><\/h3>\n6\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/strong><\/h3>\nRequired Sources<\/p>\n
\n- 5: Excellent<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
6\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Number of required resources is met. Sources are current, and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.<\/p>\n
\n- 4: Good<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
5.52\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Number of required sources is met. Sources are current, but not all sources are appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.<\/p>\n
\n- 3: Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
5.28\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Number of required sources is met, but sources are outdated or inappropriate.<\/p>\n
\n- 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
4.8\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Number of required sources is only partially met.<\/p>\n
\n- 1: Unsatisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Sources are not included.<\/p>\n
Thesis Development and Purpose<\/strong><\/h3>\n8.4\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/strong><\/h3>\nThesis Development and Purpose<\/p>\n
\n- 5: Excellent<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
8.4\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.<\/p>\n
\n- 4: Good<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
7.73\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.<\/p>\n
\n- 3: Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
7.39\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.<\/p>\n
\n- 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
6.72\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.<\/p>\n
\n- 1: Unsatisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.<\/p>\n
Argument Logic and Construction<\/strong><\/h3>\n9.6\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/strong><\/h3>\nArgument Logic and Construction<\/p>\n
\n- 5: Excellent<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
9.6\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.<\/p>\n
\n- 4: Good<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
8.83\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.<\/p>\n
\n- 3: Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
8.45\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.<\/p>\n
\n- 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
7.68\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.<\/p>\n
\n- 1: Unsatisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.<\/p>\n
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)<\/strong><\/h3>\n6\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/strong><\/h3>\nMechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)<\/p>\n
\n- 5: Excellent<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
6\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.<\/p>\n
\n- 4: Good<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
5.52\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.<\/p>\n
\n- 3: Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
5.28\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.<\/p>\n
\n- 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
4.8\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.<\/p>\n
\n- 1: Unsatisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.<\/p>\n
Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)<\/strong><\/h3>\n6\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/strong><\/h3>\nPaper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)<\/p>\n
\n- 5: Excellent<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
6\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.<\/p>\n
\n- 4: Good<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
5.52\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.<\/p>\n
\n- 3: Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
5.28\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.<\/p>\n
\n- 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
4.8\u00a0points<\/p>\n
All format elements are correct.<\/p>\n
\n- 1: Unsatisfactory<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.<\/p>\n
Documentation of Sources<\/strong><\/h3>\n6\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/strong><\/h3>\n