Posted: January 28th, 2022

Summative Assignment: Critique of Research Article essay

Week eight: Summative Project: Critique of Research Article

The physique of your paper ought to be four–6 double-spaced pages plus a canopy web page and a reference web page. The critique have to be connected to the article and comply with APA tips. PLEASE USE ARTICLES UPLOADED

A analysis critique demonstrates your means to critically learn an investigative research. For this task, select a analysis article associated to nursing.

· Articles used for this task can’t be used for the opposite assignments (college students ought to discover new analysis articles for every new task).

· The chosen articles ought to be authentic analysis articles. Assessment articles, idea Assessment, meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, integrative overview, and systemic overview shouldn’t be used.

· Blended-methods research shouldn’t be used.

· Dissertations shouldn’t be used.

Your critique ought to embody the next:

Research Drawback/Objective

· State the issue clearly as it’s offered within the report.

· Have the investigators positioned the research downside inside the context of current information?

· Will the research remedy an issue related to nursing?

· State the aim of the analysis.

Assessment of the Literature

· Determine the ideas explored within the literature overview.

· Had been the references present? If not, what do you assume the explanations are?

· Was there proof of reflexivity within the design (qualitative)?

Theoretical Framework

· Are the theoretical ideas outlined and associated to the analysis?

· Does the analysis draw solely on nursing principle or does it draw on principle from different disciplines?

· Is a theoretical framework acknowledged on this analysis piece?

· If not, recommend one which is likely to be appropriate for the research.

Variables/Hypotheses/Questions/Assumptions (Quantitative)

· What are the unbiased and dependent variables on this research?

· Are the operational definitions of the variables given? In that case, are they concrete and measurable?

· Is the analysis Question Assignment or the speculation acknowledged? What’s it?

Conceptual Underpinnings, Research Questions (Qualitative)

· Are key ideas outlined conceptually?

· Is the philoosoophical foundation, underlying custom, conoceptual framework, or ideological orientation made specific and is it acceptable for the issue?

· Are analysis questions explicitly acknowledged? Are the questions in keeping with the research’s philosophical foundation, underlying custom, conceptual framework, or ideological orientation?

Methodology

· What kind of design (quantitative, qualitative, and kind) was used on this research?

· Was inductive or deductive reasoning used on this research?

· State the pattern dimension and research inhabitants, sampling technique, and research setting.

· Did the investigator select a chance or non-probability pattern?

· State the sort of reliability and the validity of the measurement instruments (quantitative solely)

Qualitative research (reply the next questions along with these above besides the final bulleted merchandise)

· Had been the strategies of gathering knowledge acceptable?

· Had been knowledge gathered by means of two or extra strategies to realize triangulation?

· Did the researcher ask the appropriate questions or make the appropriate observations and have been they recorded in an acceptable vogue?

· Was a adequate quantity of knowledge gathered?

· Was the information of adequate depth and richness?

Had been moral concerns addressed? Had been acceptable procedures used to safeguard the rights of research individuals?

Information Assessment

· What knowledge Assessment software was used?

· Was saturation achieved? (qualitative)

· How have been the outcomes offered within the research?

· Had been the information administration (e.g., coding) and knowledge Assessment strategies sufficiently described? (qualitative)

· Determine at the very least one (1) discovering.

Abstract/Conclusions, Implications, and Suggestions

· Do the themes adequately seize the that means of the information?

· Did the Assessment yield an insightful, provocative and significant image of the phenomenon underneath investigation?

· Had been strategies used to boost the trustworthiness of the information (and Assessment) and was the outline of these strategies ample?

· Are there clear rationalization of the boundaries/limitations, thick description, audit path?

· What are the strengths and limitations of the research?

· In phrases of the findings, can the researcher generalize to different populations? Clarify.

· Consider the findings and conclusions as to their significance for nursing (each qualitative and quantitative).

The physique of your paper ought to be four–6 double-spaced pages plus a canopy web page and a reference web page. The critique have to be connected to the article and comply with APA tips.

Want APA Help?

You have to submit the analysis research articles alongside together with your task.

Assessment the rubric for additional info on how your task shall be graded.

Rubric

NURS_350_OL – NURS350-Research Critique

NURS_350_OL – NURS350-Research Critique

Standards

Scores

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeResearch Drawback/Objective

28 to >24.92 pts

Meets or Exceeds Expectations

Research downside, function of analysis, and relevance to nursing are clearly recognized.

24.92 to >21.zero pts

Principally Meets Expectations

Research downside, function of analysis, and relevance to nursing are considerably recognized.

21 to >16.52 pts

Beneath Expectations

Research downside, function of analysis, and relevance to nursing are principally absent or misidentified.

16.52 to >zero pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

Research downside, function of analysis, and relevance to nursing are absent.

28 pts

This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeReview of the Literature

42 to >37.38 pts

Meets or Exceeds Expectations

Ideas explored within the literature overview are clearly recognized. Critique of the references is included and nicely developed.

37.38 to >31.5 pts

Principally Meets Expectations

Ideas explored within the literature overview are considerably recognized. Critique of the references is included, however will not be totally developed.

31.5 to >24.78 pts

Beneath Expectations

Ideas explored within the literature overview are misidentified. Critique of the references is severely missing.

24.78 to >zero pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

Ideas explored within the literature overview are absent. Critique of the references is absent.

42 pts

This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeTheoretical Framework

28 to >24.92 pts

Meets or Exceeds Expectations

A theoretical idea/framework is recognized and nicely analyzed for appropriateness. If the article lacks an idea/framework, an acceptable one is recommended.

24.92 to >21.zero pts

Principally Meets Expectations

A theoretical idea/framework is considerably recognized and analyzed for appropriateness. If the article lacks an idea/framework, a possible idea/framework is recommended, however it’s considerably inappropriate.

21 to >16.52 pts

Beneath Expectations

A theoretical idea/framework is considerably recognized and analyzed for appropriateness. If the article lacks an idea/framework, a possible idea/framework is recommended, isn’t recognized or is grossly inappropriate.

16.52 to >zero pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

A theoretical idea/framework is misidentified or not analyzed for appropriateness.

28 pts

This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeVariables, Hypotheses, Questions, and Assumptions

14 to >12.46 pts

Meets or Exceeds Expectations

IV and DV are recognized and outlined. Dialogue on measurability is included. Research Question Assignment and speculation are recognized.

12.46 to >10.5 pts

Principally Meets Expectations

IV and DV are considerably recognized and or partially outlined. Dialogue on measurability is considerably included. Research Question Assignment and speculation are partially recognized.

10.5 to >eight.26 pts

Beneath Expectations

IV and DV identification and definition are absent or severely missing. Dialogue on measurability is absent or inaccurate. Research Question Assignment and speculation will not be recognized or grossly misidentified.

eight.26 to >zero pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

IV and DV identification and definition are absent. Dialogue on measurability is absent. Research Question Assignment and speculation will not be recognized.

14 pts

This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeMethodology

56 to >49.84 pts

Meets or Exceeds Expectations

Kind of design, pattern dimension, research inhabitants, sampling technique, and kind of reasoning are correctly recognized. Reliability and validity of measurement instruments, moral concerns, and chance vs. non-probability sampling are mentioned.

49.84 to >42.zero pts

Principally Meets Expectations

Kind of design, pattern dimension, research inhabitants, sampling technique, and kind of reasoning are considerably recognized. Reliability and validity of measurement instruments, moral concerns, and chance vs. non-probability sampling are mentioned, however some info is inaccurate.

42 to >33.04 pts

Beneath Expectations

Kind of design, pattern dimension, research inhabitants, sampling technique, and kind of reasoning are absent or misidentified. Reliability and validity of measurement instruments, moral concerns, and chance vs. non-probability sampling are both absent or grossly inaccurate.

33.04 to >zero pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

Kind of design, pattern dimension, research inhabitants, sampling technique, and kind of reasoning are absent. Reliability and validity of measurement instruments, moral concerns, and chance vs. non-probability sampling are absent.

56 pts

This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeData Assessment

42 to >37.38 pts

Meets or Exceeds Expectations

Information Assessment software is recognized. An evidence on how the outcomes are offered within the research is included and correct. At the least one discovering is appropriately recognized.

37.38 to >31.5 pts

Principally Meets Expectations

Information Assessment software is considerably recognized. An incomplete rationalization on how the outcomes are offered within the research is included. At the least one discovering is recognized.

31.5 to >24.78 pts

Beneath Expectations

Information Assessment software is absent or misidentified. An evidence on how the outcomes are offered within the research is absent or grossly unclear. Findings will not be included or are grossly inaccurate.

24.78 to >zero pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

Information Assessment software is absent. An evidence on how the outcomes are offered within the research is absent. Findings will not be included.

42 pts

This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeSummary, Conclusions, Implications, and Suggestions

56 to >49.84 pts

Meets or Exceeds Expectations

Strengths and limitations of the research are recognized. A dialogue on whether or not or not the research will be generalized is included. An analysis of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing is included and acceptable.

49.84 to >42.zero pts

Principally Meets Expectations

Strengths and limitations of the research are considerably recognized. A dialogue on whether or not or not the research will be generalized is included however will not be totally developed. An analysis of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing will not be totally developed.

42 to >33.04 pts

Beneath Expectations

Strengths and limitations of research are absent or missing. A dialogue on whether or not or not the research will be generalized is absent or missing. An analysis of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing is absent or inappropriate.

33.04 to >zero pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

Strengths and limitations of research are absent. A dialogue on whether or not or not the research will be generalized is absent. An analysis of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing is absent.

56 pts

This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeMechanics and APA Format

14 to >12.46 pts

Meets or Exceeds Expectations

Written in a transparent, concise, formal, and arranged method. Responses are principally error free. Data from sources is appropriately paraphrased and precisely cited.

12.46 to >10.5 pts

Principally Meets Expectations

Writing is usually clear and arranged however isn’t concise or formal in language. A number of errors exist in spelling and grammar with minor interference with readability or comprehension. Most info from sources is accurately paraphrased and cited.

10.5 to >eight.26 pts

Beneath Expectations

Writing is usually unclear and unorganized. Some errors in spelling and grammar detract from readability and comprehension. Sources are lacking or improperly cited.

eight.26 to >zero pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

Writing is unclear and unorganized. Errors in spelling and grammar detract from readability and comprehension. Sources are lacking.

Week eight: Summative Project: Research Article Critique

four–6 double-spaced pages plus a canopy web page and a reference web page ought to make up the physique of your paper. The critique ought to be appended to the article and formatted in accordance with APA requirements. PLEASE USE THE ARTICLES THAT HAVE BEEN UPLOADED.

A analysis criticism displays your means to investigate a analysis mission critically. Select a nursing-related analysis article to your activity.

This task’s articles can’t be used for every other assignments (college students ought to discover new analysis articles for every new task).

Unique analysis articles ought to be among the many articles chosen. Idea Assessment, meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, integrative overview, and systematic overview will not be acceptable.

Blended-methods analysis ought to be averted.

Dissertations will not be for use.

The next ought to be included in your critique:

Drawback/Objective of Research

Clearly state the issue because it seems within the report.

Have the researchers framed the analysis downside within the perspective of earlier information?

Will the research deal with a nursing-related concern?

Declare the analysis’s function.

Look at the Literature

Determine the themes that have been mentioned in the course of the literature overview.

Had been the references updated? What do you suppose the causes are if not?

Was there any proof of reflexivity (qualitative) within the design?

Theoretical Basis

Is it doable to outline and apply theoretical ideas to the analysis?

Is the analysis based on nursing principle, or does it additionally embody principle from different disciplines?

Is there a theoretical framework on this research paper?

If not, suggest one that may be acceptable for the analysis.

Variables/Hypotheses/Questions/Assumptions/Assumptions/Assumptions/Assumptions/Assumptions/A (Quantitative)

What are the research’s unbiased and dependent variables?

Is it doable to get the operational definitions of the variables? Are they concrete and measurable, in that case?

Is there an announcement of the research Question Assignment or speculation? What precisely is it?

Research Questions, Conceptual Underpinnings (Qualitative)

Are essential notions cognitively outlined?

Is the philosophical basis, underlying custom, conceptual framework, or ideological orientation made plain, and is it related to the issue?

Are the analysis questions offered clearly? Is the research’s philosophical basis, underlying custom, conceptual framework, or ideological orientation in keeping with the questions?

Methodology

On this research, what kind of design (quantitative, qualitative, and kind) was used?

Was this research primarily based on inductive or deductive reasoning?

State the pattern dimension and inhabitants of the research, in addition to the sampling course of and research location.

Is it a chance or non-probability pattern that the investigator used?

Describe the measurement instruments’ stage of reliability and validity (quantitative solely)

Qualitative analysis (besides from the final bulleted merchandise, reply the next questions along with those listed above)

Had been the information assortment procedures acceptable?

To perform triangulation, have been knowledge collected utilizing two or extra strategies?

Is it doable that the researcher requested the appropriate questions or made the appropriate observations, and that they have been documented correctly?

Was there sufficient info gathered?

Was there sufficient depth and selection within the knowledge?

Had been moral concerns taken under consideration? Had been correct safeguards in place to guard the rights of analysis individuals?

Analyze the information

What variety of knowledge Assessment software program was used?

Was it doable to achieve saturation? (qualitative)

How have been the research’s findings offered?

Had been the methodologies for knowledge administration (e.g., coding) and knowledge Assessment adequately described? (qualitative)

At the least one (1) discovering ought to be recognized.

Conclusions, Implications, and Suggestions Abstract/Conclusions, Implications, and Suggestions

Do the themes successfully seize the information’s that means?

Is the image of the phenomenon underneath examination clever, intriguing, and significant because of this of the Assessment?

Had been procedures utilized to enhance the information’s (and Assessment’) reliability, and was the outline of these approaches ample?

Do the boundaries/limitations have a transparent rationalization, an in depth description, and an audit path?

What are the research’s benefits and drawbacks?

Is it doable for the researcher to extrapolate the findings to different populations? Clarify.

Assess the importance of the findings and implications for nursing (each qualitative and quantitative).

four–6 double-spaced pages plus a canopy web page and a reference web page ought to make up the physique of your paper. The critique ought to be appended to the article and formatted in accordance with APA requirements.

Do you require APA help?

Alongside together with your task, you have to ship the analysis research articles.

For extra info on how your task shall be judged, look over the rubric.

Rubric

NURS 350 OL – NURS350-Research Critique NURS 350 OL – NURS350-Research Critique

NURS 350 OL – NURS350-Research Critique NURS 350 OL – NURS350-Research Critique

Standards

Scores

Pts

This criterion has a Studying OutcomeResearch Drawback/Objective connected to it.

28.92 pts to >24.92 pts

Expectations are met or exceeded

The analysis downside, function, and relevance to nursing are all nicely acknowledged.

>21.zero pts 24.92 pts 24.92 pts 24.92 pts 24

Principally Accomplishes Expectations

The analysis downside, the target of the analysis, and the relation to nursing are all recognized to some extent.

>16.52 pts to 21 pts

Expectations weren’t met.

The analysis problem, the target of the analysis, and the relevance of the analysis to nursing are regularly lacking or misrepresented.

16.52 factors. to zero pts.

Expectations aren’t met

The analysis downside, function, and relevance to nursing are all lacking.

28 factors

This criterion is tied to a Assessment of the Literature Studying Consequence.

42.38 pts to >37.38 pts

Expectations are met or exceeded

The literature overview’s key ideas are clearly acknowledged. Reference criticism is included and successfully developed.

37.38 factors. to 31.5 pts.

Principally Accomplishes Expectations

The literature overview’s ideas have been recognized to some extent. Reference criticism is included, however it will not be totally developed.

>24.78 pts 31.5 pts 31.5 pts 31.5 pts 31.5

Expectations weren’t met.

The literature overview’s ideas are incorrectly recognized. Reference criticism is woefully weak.

24.78 factors. to zero pts.

Expectations aren’t met

There aren’t any ideas mentioned within the literature overview. The allusions will not be questioned.

42 factors

This criterion is tied to a Theoretical Framework for Studying Outcomes.

28.92 pts to >24.92 pts

Expectations are met or exceeded

A theoretical idea/framework is recognized and totally examined for suitability. An appropriate idea/framework is beneficial if the article lacks one.

>21.zero pts 24.92 pts 24.92 pts 24.92 pts 24

Principally Accomplishes Expectations

A theoretical idea/framework is recognized and evaluated for suitability. A possible idea/framework is recommended if the article lacks one, nonetheless it’s barely inappropriate.

>16.52 pts to 21 pts

Expectations weren’t met.

A theoretical idea/framework is recognized and evaluated for suitability. If the article is lacking an idea/framework, a potential idea/framework is proposed however not recognized, or the idea/framework is wildly incorrect.

16.52 factors. to zero pts.

Expectations aren’t met

A theoretical idea or framework is misidentified or not correctly evaluated.

28 factors

Variables, Hypotheses, Questions, and Assumptions are all linked to a Studying Consequence.

14.46 pts to >14.46 pts

Expectations are met or exceeded

The IV and DV syndromes are acknowledged and outlined. There may be additionally a dialogue of measurability. The analysis matter in addition to the speculation have been recognized.

12.46 factors. to 10.5 pts.

Principally Accomplishes Expectations

IV and DV have been recognized and/or characterised to some extent. Measurability is mentioned in some element. The analysis Question Assignment and speculation have been recognized partly.

>eight.26 pts 10.5 pts 10.5 pts 10.5 pts 10.5

Expectations weren’t met.

Identification and definition of IV and DV are both lacking or considerably poor. Measurability is both ignored or misunderstood. The analysis matter and speculation are both not recognized or are drastically incorrectly recognized.

eight.26 factors. to zero pts.

Expectations aren’t met

I, IV, and DV The phrases “identification” and “definition” aren’t used. There is no such thing as a point out of measurability. There is no such thing as a point out of a analysis Question Assignment or speculation.

14 factors

This criterion has a Studying OutcomeMethodology connected to it.

56.84 pts to >49.84 pts

Expectations are met or exceeded

The design kind, pattern dimension, research inhabitants, sampling technique, and reasoning course of are all accurately recognized. The subjects of measurement software reliability and validity, moral concerns, and chance vs. non-probability sampling are examined.

>42.zero pts 49.84 pts 49.84 pts 49.84 pts 49

Principally Accomplishes Expectations

The sort of design, pattern dimension, research inhabitants, sampling course of, and reasoning method are all recognized to some extent. Some info is wrong, together with measurement software reliability and validity, moral implications, and chance vs. non-probability sampling.

42.04 pts to >33.04 pts

Expectations weren’t met.

The sort of design, pattern dimension, research inhabitants, sampling technique, and reasoning course of are both lacking or incorrectly recognized. Moral concerns, measurement software reliability and validity, and chance vs. non-probability sampling are all both missing or severely unsuitable.

>zero pts to 33.04 pts

Expectations aren’t met

There is no such thing as a point out of the sort of design, pattern dimension, research inhabitants, sampling course of, or rationalization. There is no such thing as a point out of measurement software reliability and validity, moral concerns, or chance vs. non-probability sampling.

56 factors

This criterion is tied to a Information Assessment of Studying Outcomes.

42.38 pts to >37.38 pts

Expectations are met or exceeded

A software for knowledge Assessment has been recognized. An evidence of how the research’s findings are offered is included, and it’s appropriate. At the least one discovering has been recognized accurately.

37.38 factors. to 31.5 pts.

Principally Accomplishes Expectations

An information Assessment software has been recognized to some extent. There may be an inadequate description of how the research’s findings are offered. At the least one discovery has been made.

>24.78 pts 31.5 pts 31.5 pts 31.5 pts 31.5

Expectations weren’t met.

The information Assessment software is lacking or incorrectly recognized. An evidence of how the research’s findings are offered is both lacking or extraordinarily ambiguous. Findings are both lacking or extremely deceptive.

24.78 factors. to zero pts.

Expectations aren’t met

There is no such thing as a knowledge Assessment software. There is no such thing as a rationalization of how the research’s findings are offered. The outcomes aren’t included.

42 factors

Abstract, Conclusions, Implications, and Suggestions are all tied to this criterion.

56.84 pts to >49.84 pts

Expectations are met or exceeded

The research’s strengths and weaknesses are recognized. There may be additionally a dialogue of whether or not the findings will be generalized. An correct analysis of the findings, conclusions, and relevance to nursing is included.

>42.zero pts 49.84 pts 49.84 pts 49.84 pts 49

Principally Accomplishes Expectations

The research’s strengths and weaknesses have been recognized to some extent. There’s a dispute on whether or not the research will be generalized, however it will not be totally developed. An Assessment of the outcomes, conclusions, and relevance to nursing will not be accomplished.

42.04 pts to >33.04 pts

Expectations weren’t met.

The research’s strengths and weaknesses are lacking or non-existent. There is no such thing as a dialogue of whether or not or not the research will be generalized. There is no such thing as a or inadequate analysis of the information, conclusions, and relevance to nursing.

>zero pts to 33.04 pts

Expectations aren’t met

The research’s strengths and shortcomings aren’t talked about. There is no such thing as a dialogue of whether or not the findings will be generalized. There is no such thing as a Assessment of the findings, conclusions, or relevance to nursing.

56 factors

This criterion is tied to a Mechanics and APA Format Studying Consequence.

14.46 pts to >14.46 pts

Expectations are met or exceeded

Written in a way that’s clear, concise, formal, and well-organized. The bulk of the responses are error-free. The data from sources is paraphrased and cited accurately.

12.46 factors. to 10.5 pts.

Principally Accomplishes Expectations

The writing is usually simple and ordered, nonetheless the language is neither succinct or formal. A number of spelling and grammar issues happen, inflicting average readability and comprehension points. The bulk of content material is appropriately paraphrased and cited from sources.

>eight.26 pts 10.5 pts 10.5 pts 10.5 pts 10.5

Expectations weren’t met.

Usually, writing is illegible and disorganized. Readability and comprehension are harmed by some spelling and grammar issues. Sources aren’t cited accurately or aren’t cited in any respect.

eight.26 factors. to zero pts.

Expectations aren’t met

The writing is disorganized and imprecise. Readability and comprehension are harmed by spelling and grammar errors. There aren’t any sources accessible.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Custom essay writing service, Do my homework, Health Care and Life Sciences paper writers, Healthcare Essay Writing Services, Healthcare homework help