Posted: March 30th, 2022

Assessment 1: Laboratory Report

1. Assessment Overview

Module title Analysis & Interpretation of Clinical Data
Assessment title Assessment 1: Laboratory Report
Assessment weighting 75%
Assessment summary A written report analysing and interpreting the data collected from laboratory-based practical work (ELISA, Western blot, PCR)
Learning outcomes assessed • Master complex data analysis, including performing statistical analysis and data interpretation
• Deploy high-quality academic writing skills to report results of laboratory investigations in a concise and appropriate scientific manner
• Critically analyse the importance of assay development and quality control in laboratory testing
Word count 3000 words

(in-text citations are included in the word count)

(references in the reference list, words in tables, table titles, figures, figure legends or the appendix are not included in the word count)

The penalty for exceeding the word count will be 5 marks per 1000 words excess.
Referencing APA 7th style
Assessment Deadline 30th September, 2022
Assessment deadline Work submitted after the deadline will be recorded as late, unless an extension or deferral has been obtained. The penalty for late work is 5 marks for work submitted up to 24 hours after a deadline, and 5 marks per day after this, including weekends
Submission details You must submit a single PDF file.

Formative feedback You have the opportunity to receive individual feedback on up to 500 words as follows:
• You must choose one set of data:
– ELISA standard curve and patient results
– ELISA standard curve and quality control results
– Western blot data
– PCR data
• You should provide a brief description of the key results for the selected data set under a results subheading
• You should present the data with an accompanying figure legend/table title (not included in word count)
• You should write your interpretation of the selected data set under a discussion subheading

You will receive feedback on data presentation, your description of key results and your interpretation of the data.

If you wish to receive feedback on this formative task, please submit your task to the submission link ‘Assessment 1 – formative feedback’ by 9am on 4th November 2022. Any drafts submitted to the inbox after this deadline will not receive feedback

Marking criteria The assessment will be assessed according to the marking criteria on pages 5-9. The pass mark is 50%.

2. Assessment Guidance

• You will be analysing and interpreting the ELISA, Western blot and PCR – all 3 sets of data must be included within the report.
• Please state your assessment number and word count on the first page of the report.
• Use a formal academic writing style and use scientific language throughout.
• The report should be written in the third person
• The report should include the following sections: introduction, results, discussion, reference list and appendix. Please note a methods section is not required for this report. Further guidance is given below with suggested word counts:

Introduction (~ 200 words)
The introduction should provide context to the report. You will need to provide wider background information and briefly summarise the scenario in your own words and introduce the purpose/aim(s) of the report. You should avoid repeating the information provided in the guidelines. The introduction should be supported by reference to relevant literature.

Results (~ 200 words)
In the results section you should use appropriate scientific conventions to communicate the results that you obtained – you should simply present and describe the results in this section, do not interpret the data here. No references should be needed in the results section. Figures and tables should be labelled appropriately and fully.
To support you with this, there are 3 guides which you should refer to on MD7002 Moodle site under ‘ASSESSMENT 1’  ASSESSMENT 1 RESOURCES:
– Guide to writing scientific reports
– Guide to figures & figure legends
– Guide to tables & table titles

The results section should be structured as follows:
ELISA results
• A concise description of the key results for the ELISA data (patient samples and QC samples)
• Standard curve for the creatinine ELISA
• Tabulated results of the creatinine concentration for the two patients (Note: this should be a summary table – the table of raw data should be included in the appendix)
• Tabulated results of the QC data including key results of appropriate statistical tests (Note: this should be a summary table – the completed table provided in the guidelines should be included in the appendix)

Western blot results
• A concise description of the key results for the Western blot data
• Fully annotated Western blot image PCR results
• A concise description of the key results for the PCR data
• Fully annotated agarose gel image

Discussion (~2600 words)
The following elements should be addressed in your discussion:
• Combine all of the parameters tested and discuss what the results mean in context with the patient – you should refer to both your results and primary literature to support your discussion
• With reference to your data and relevant literature, discuss the optimisation of Western blotting (in order to achieve the depth required at level 7, you should focus in detail on a restricted number of key points which are relevant to your data)
• With reference to your QC data for the ELISA and relevant literature, discuss the importance of quality control in laboratory testing
• You should also include a concise conclusion which brings the report together -it expected you will refer back to the aim(s) of the report.

You are encouraged to use relevant subheadings to structure the discussion.

Appendix
This section should contain supplementary material that is not essential in the main results section but will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the results provided.
The appendix should be labelled alphabetically and include:
• A table of the raw data used to produce the standard curve for the creatinine ELISA
• A table of the raw data used to calculate the creatinine concentration in the patients
• A copy of the completed table for QC data for the ELISA (from the guidelines)
• Screenshots of key statistical outputs

3. Marking Criteria

You will be assessed for MD7002 assessment 1 using the following marking criteria which is based on the generic marking criteria for level 7. You will be assessed on four main criteria:
• Knowledge – knowledge and understanding of the academic discipline
• Sources – Reading and use of appropriate sources
• Analysis – Critical analysis and interpretation
• Communication – Communication skills, written and presented

Distinction
90–100%
Evidence
of… Distinction
80-89%
Evidence of… Distinction
70-79%
Evidence of… Merit
60-69%
Evidence
of… Pass
50-59%
Evidence
of… Fail
40-49% Evidence
of… Fail
30-39%
Evidence of… Fail
20-29%
Evidence
of… Fail
10-19%
Evidence
of… Fail
0-9%
Evidence of…
Knowledge

Knowledge and understanding of the academic discipline, field of study, or area of professional practice.

SCOPE: critical engagement with the primary and secondary sources used to answer the
question. Response is appropriate and addresses the range of learning outcomes;

Insightful and sophisticated engagement with relevant research material;

Demonstration and application of knowledge pertaining to data and statistical analysis, assay development and quality control;

A sophisticated degree of synthesis, quite likely of complex and disparate material. Response is appropriate and addresses the range of learning outcomes;

Advanced engagement with relevant research material;

Accomplished demonstration of knowledge pertaining to data and statistical analysis, assay development and quality control;

Extremely high degree of synthesis of research material. Response is appropriate and addresses the range of learning outcomes;

A high degree of synthesis relating relevant research material;

Excellent demonstration of knowledge and understanding pertaining to data and statistical analysis, assay development and quality control;

Critical analysis evident with the potential for new insights. Response is appropriate and addresses the range of learning outcomes;

An assured understanding of key issues pertaining to data and statistical analysis, assay development and quality control, supported by critical analysis with the potential for new insights;

A sustained application and depth of research material and accuracy in detail. Response is appropriate and addresses the range of learning outcomes; where the knowledge is accurate. Work may lack sustained depth;

Engagement with relevant knowledge pertaining to data and statistical analysis, assay development and quality control;

Satisfactory conceptual awareness enabling critical analysis. Response does not address the full range of learning outcomes, inaccurate and/or missing knowledge at times;

Insufficient engagement with relevant research material;

Unsatisfactory engagement with relevant knowledge and insufficient understanding of key issues relating to data and statistical analysis, assay development and quality control;

Insufficient conceptual awareness and lacking in critical analysis. Response does not address learning outcomes, inaccurate and missing knowledge;

Inadequate engagement with relevant research material;

Inadequate coverage of relevant issues relating to data and statistical analysis, assay development and quality control;

Inconsistent understanding shown and analysis is weak and underdeveloped. Response does not address learning outcomes;

Lack of relevant research and little understanding shown;

Very weak understanding of key issues relating to data and statistical analysis, assay development and quality control, work lacks critical oversight. Response does not address learning outcomes;

Severely lacking in relevant research and underpinning knowledge;

Slight understanding of key issues relating to data and statistical analysis, assay development and quality control, little attempt at critical analysis. Response does not address learning outcomes;

No engagement with relevant research material;

Negligible understanding of key issues relating to data and statistical analysis, assay development and quality control, which is likely to show no critical analysis or engagement with the learning brief.

Distinction
90–100%
Evidence
of… Distinction
80-89%
Evidence of… Distinction
70-79%
Evidence of… Merit
60-69%
Evidence
of… Pass
50-59%
Evidence of… Fail
40-49% Evidence
of… Fail
30-39%
Evidence of… Fail
20-29%
Evidence
of… Fail
10-19%
Evidence
of… Fail
0-9%
Evidence of…
Sources

Reading and use of appropriate sources.

SCOPE: accurate and consistent acknowledgment and referencing of sources. Extensive range and sophisticated use of appropriate sources;

Unparalleled standard of research both in breadth and depth, which demonstrates a very high intellectual engagement and rigor;

Sources acknowledged appropriately according to APA 7th style. Extensive range and use of appropriate sources;

Extremely well referenced research both in breadth and depth, which demonstrates high intellectual engagement and rigor;

Sources acknowledged appropriately according to APA 7th style. Substantial range and sophisticated use of sources;

Well referenced research both in breadth and depth, which demonstrates clear intellectual rigor;

Sources acknowledged appropriately according to APA 7th style. An assured range of reading, with sustained reference to key and core texts. The work may include current research at the leading edge of the discipline;

Very good referencing in breadth and/or depth, which shows a very good level of intellectual rigor;

Sources acknowledged appropriately according to APA 7th style. A satisfactory range of core and basic texts, which references current research in the discipline;

Sources acknowledged appropriately according to APA 7th style;

The work may contain minor errors and be limited in breadth, depth and intellectual rigor. Insufficient range of source reading of core and basic texts;

Sources not acknowledged in line with APA 7th style. Reading material is Inadequate and may not include core and basic texts;

Sources inaccurately referenced. Very weak engagement with source reading;

Inconsistent and/or limited
referencing of sources. Severely lacking source
reading;

Sources either not present
and/or not referenced. Negligible attempt to identify source material;

No indication of source reading.

Distinction
90–100%
Evidence of… Distinction
80-89%
Evidence of… Distinction
70-79%
Evidence of… Merit
60-69%
Evidence of… Pass
50-59%
Evidence of… Fail
40-49% Evidence of… Fail
30-39%
Evidence of… Fail
20-29%
Evidence of… Fail
10-19%
Evidence of… Fail
0-9%
Evidence of…
Analysis

Critical analysis and interpretation.

SCOPE:
appropriate analytical discussion and interpretation of source material. A sophisticated
ability to perform data and statistical analysis and interpret laboratory results;

An unparalleled level of analysis and Assessment;

A sophisticated cogent argument offering new and original contributions to knowledge. Advanced ability to
perform data and statistical analysis and interpret laboratory results;

Accomplished level of analysis;

A highly developed cogent argument with the potential to bring new and original contributions to knowledge. An excellent ability
to perform data and statistical analysis and interpret laboratory results;

A high degree of analysis and Assessment;

A sustained argument with the possibility for new insights to knowledge. A convincing ability
to perform data and statistical analysis and interpret laboratory results;

A developed conceptual understanding that enables the student to find new meanings in established hypotheses;

A developed and sustained argument with the possibility for new insights to knowledge. An ability to
perform data and statistical analysis and interpret laboratory results;

A satisfactory Assessment of relevant, current research;

Ability to devise a coherent critical/ analytical argument is supported with evidence. A lack of ability to
perform data and statistical analysis and interpret laboratory results;

Judgements not fully substantiated and understood;

The ability to construct an argument is underdeveloped and not supported fully with evidence. A lack of ability to
perform data and statistical analysis and interpret laboratory results;

Judgements are not substantiated or understood and the critical position is not made clear;

Weak interpretation of research and work is not supported with evidence. Very weak
analysis, possibly limited to a single perspective.

Substandard argument, work ability to perform data and statistical analysis and interpret laboratory results;

Episodes of self- contradiction and/or confusion. Slight indication of
ability to perform data and statistical analysis and interpret laboratory results;

Slight analytical engagement and work lacks criticality throughout;

Lacks evidence, work shows self- contradiction and confusion. No attempt to
interpret laboratory data or research material.;

No evidence of critical analysis.

Distinction
90–100%
Evidence
of… Distinction
80-89%
Evidence of… Distinction
70-79%
Evidence of… Merit
60-69%
Evidence
of… Pass
50-59%
Evidence
of… Fail
40-49% Evidence
of… Fail
30-39%
Evidence of… Fail
20-29%
Evidence
of… Fail
10-19%
Evidence
of… Fail
0-9%
Evidence of…
Communication

Communication skills: creative, written and presented.

SCOPE: communication of intent, adherence to academic
subject discipline protocols. A sophisticated response, the academic form matches that expected;

Mastery and command of specialist skills pertaining to writing a laboratory report;

Idiomatic and highly coherent, scholarly expression. Persuasive articulation, where the academic form, largely matches that expected;

Accomplished command of specialist skills pertaining to writing a laboratory report. A high degree of skill, the academic form shows exceptional standards;

A high command of specialist skills pertaining to writing a laboratory report. Secure and sustained expression, observing appropriate academic form;

Very good demonstration of key skills related to writing a laboratory report;

Fluent and persuasive expression of ideas, work shows flair;

Assured interpretation of the style and genre, content, form and technique for specialist audience. Good expression, observing appropriate academic form;

A good demonstration of key skills related to writing a laboratory report;

Predominantly accurate in spelling and grammar, ideas communicated appropriately and satisfactorily;

Satisfactory application of specialist skills with effective technical control. Unsatisfactory demonstration and application of key communication skills expected for an academic laboratory report;

Recurring errors in spelling and grammar, ideas limited and underdeveloped, possibly poor paraphrasing;

Skills demonstrated are insufficient for the task and work may lack technical judgement. Significant errors evident in the academic form;

Weak demonstration of key skills related to writing a laboratory report;

Weaknesses in spelling and grammar, lacks coherence and structure, possibly poor paraphrasing;

Work lacks technical judgement. Very weak observation of academic conventions;

Very weak demonstration of key skills related to writing a laboratory report;

Severe deficiencies in spelling and grammar and expression undermines meaning, possibly poor paraphrasing;

Substandard relationship between content, form and technique. Slight observation of academic conventions;

Slight demonstration of key skills related to writing a laboratory report;

Weak expression, mostly incoherent and fails to secure meaning, poor paraphrasing;

Slight engagement with the work. Negligible observation of academic conventions;

Incoherent and confused expression, poor paraphrasing;

No discernible demonstration of key skills related to writing a laboratory report;

No engagement with the work.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: best assignment help websites in canada, best nursing paper writing service, buy psychology essay, Cheap Psychology Essay Writing Service, dissertation assignment help