Literature Search Rapid Critical Appraisal and Summary

Week 6: Literature Search, Rapid Critical Appraisal, and Summary

Due Oct 4 by 2:59am Points 200 Submitting a text entry box or a file upload

NURS_350_OL – NURS350-Literature Review with Rapid Critical Appraisal Checklists

Start Assignment

For this assignment, you will locate two research studies related to the topic and PICOT questions that you developed in Week 2. The articles must be current (within the last five years), and one article must be quantitative, and one article must be qualitative. For this assignment all articles must be related to the field of nursing.

Article choice is very important, therefore:

Articles used for this assignment cannot be used for the other assignments. The selected articles should be original research studies. Review articles, concept analysis, meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, integrative review, and systemic review articles should not be used. Mixed-methods studies should not be used.

There are two parts to this assignment.

Part 1: Complete a Rapid Critical Appraisal Checklist (https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/8098/files/1750731/download? download_frd=1)

Select one each: qualitative and quantitative research articles. Create a Rapid Critical Appraisal Checklist for the two research articles (one column per article). Complete with brief, concise, summarized information.

Part II: Write a summary (one- to two- pages)

Identify differences between quantitative and qualitative designs and research methods. Describe the differences in your article’s quantitative and qualitative designs and methods. Carefully review the rubric before you submit. This summary is using your own words to examine the differences specifically between your articles. Use current APA Style for your summary paper and to cite your sources. Submit the checklist and summary.

You must submit the research study articles along with your assignment.

Review the rubric for further information on how your assignment will be graded.

 

 

Criteria Ratings Pts

10 pts

40 pts

30 pts

40 pts

60 pts

Two substantive research articles <br> (one qualitative and one quantitative) are clearly identified as original research studies.

10 to >8.9 pts Meets or Exceeds Expectations

Two quality, substantive articles (one qualitative and one quantitative) are selected and are suitable original research studies.

8.9 to >7.5 pts Mostly Meets Expectations

Two articles (one qualitative and one quantitative) are selected and are mostly substantive, but at least one is not a suitable original research study, or is not sufficiently substantive.

7.5 to >5.9 pts Below Expectations

One article is selected and identified as qualitative or quantitative research, or it is not a suitable original research study.

5.9 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations

Articles are not original research; one qualitative and one quantitative article are not identified.

Description of the research problem and purpose of each research article

40 to >35.6 pts Meets or Exceeds Expectations

The research problem and the purpose for each article are expertly examined.

35.6 to >30.0 pts Mostly Meets Expectations

The research problem and the purpose for each article are adequately examined with minor omissions or errors.

30 to >23.6 pts Below Expectations

The research problem and the purpose for each article are vague, absent or not identified, and contain major omissions or errors.

23.6 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations

The research problem and its purpose are not identified for any of the articles.

Description of the research methods for each research article

30 to >26.7 pts Meets or Exceeds Expectations

An extensive description of the variables, the sample, and the research methods is clearly presented for each article.

26.7 to >22.5 pts Mostly Meets Expectations

An adequate description of the, variables, the sample, and the research methods is presented for most articles with minor omissions or errors.

22.5 to >17.7 pts Below Expectations

An unsatisfactory description of the variables, sample, and the research methods is presented for both articles with major omissions or errors.

17.7 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations

A description of the variables, the sample, and the research methods is not presented for any of the articles.

Summary of the findings/conclusions/themes for each research article

40 to >35.6 pts Meets or Exceeds Expectations

An expertly examined investigation of the findings, themes, and conclusions for both articles is skillfully presented for each article.

35.6 to >30.0 pts Mostly Meets Expectations

An adequate investigation of the findings, themes, and conclusions for both is satisfactorily presented with minor omissions or errors.

30 to >23.6 pts Below Expectations

An unsatisfactory investigation of the findings, themes, and conclusions for both articles is provided with major omissions or errors, or only one of the articles is investigated and presented satisfactorily.

23.6 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations

A description of the findings, themes, and conclusions, is not presented for either article.

Description of the similarities and differences among the research articles

60 to >53.4 pts Meets or Exceeds Expectations

The description of the similarities and differences among the research articles is clear and thorough.

53.4 to >45.0 pts Mostly Meets Expectations

The description of the similarities and differences among the research articles is adequate with minor omissions or errors.

45 to >35.4 pts Below Expectations

The description of the similarities and differences among the research articles is inadequate with major omissions or errors.

35.4 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations

The description of the similarities and differences among the research articles is not provided.

 

 

Total Points: 200

Criteria Ratings Pts

10 pts

10 pts

APA 10 to >8.9 pts Meets or Exceeds Expectations

Uses APA Style accurately and consistently to cite sources with only 1–2 errors. Sources are expertly cited and are peer- reviewed, relevant sources. Meets all formatting requirements (length and style) of the assignment.

8.9 to >7.5 pts Mostly Meets Expectations

Uses APA Style with minor citation violations with 3–4 errors. Sources are somewhat relevant, but may be limited in scholarly nature. Meets most formatting requirements (length and style) of the assignment.

7.5 to >5.9 pts Below Expectations

Reflects incomplete knowledge of APA Style with 5–6 errors. Sources are not cited, or there are many errors. Sources are not scholarly in nature. Meets most formatting requirements (length and style) of the assignment.

5.9 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations

Does not use APA Style, or there are pervasive errors throughout the paper. Does not meet formatting requirements (length and style) of the assignment.

Mechanics 10 to >8.9 pts Meets or Exceeds Expectations

The writing demonstrates a sophisticated clarity, conciseness, and correctness; includes thorough details and information; and is extremely well organized. Punctuation, spelling, and capitalization are all correct. There are minimal to no errors.

8.9 to >7.5 pts Mostly Meets Expectations

The writing is accomplished in terms of clarity and conciseness, includes sufficient details, and is well organized, but it may contain a few errors. Punctuation, spelling, and capitalization are generally correct with not many errors.

7.5 to >5.9 pts Below Expectations

The writing lacks clarity or conciseness, contains numerous errors, and lacks organization. Errors in punctuation, spelling, and capitalization detract from the readability of the paper

5.9 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations

The writing is unfocused, rambling, or contains serious errors; lacks detail and relevant data and information; and is poorly organized. There are many distracting errors in punctuation, spelling, and capitalization.