Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: Research Critical Appraisal 

Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: Research Critical Appraisal 

Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: Research Critical Appraisal 

Realtors rely on detailed property appraisals—conducted using appraisal tools—to assign market values to houses and other properties. These values are then presented to buyers and sellers to set prices and initiate offers. 

Research appraisal is not that different. The critical appraisal process utilizes formal appraisal tools to assess the results of research to determine value to the context at hand. Evidence-based practitioners often present these findings to make the case for specific courses of action.

In this Assignment, you will use an appraisal tool to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.

ORDER Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: Research Critical Appraisal 

To Prepare:

  • Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and the four systematic reviews (or other filtered high- level evidence) you selected in Module 3. 
  • Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3. 
  • Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template provided in the Resources.

The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)

Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected by completing the Evaluation Table within the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Choose a total of four peer- reviewed articles that you selected related to your clinical topic of interest in Module 2 and Module 3.

Note: You can choose any combination of articles from Modules 2 and 3 for your Critical Appraisal. For example, you may choose two unfiltered research articles from Module 2 and two filtered research articles (systematic reviews) from Module 3 or one article from Module 2 and three articles from Module 3. You can choose any combination of articles from the prior Module Assignments as long as both modules and types of studies are represented.

Part 4B: Critical Appraisal of Research

Based on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.

Rubric Detail – Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: Research Critical Appraisal 

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric

  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected and analyzed by completing the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Be sure to include:

·   An Evaluation Table

45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

The critical appraisal accurately and clearly provides a detailed evaluation table. The responses provide a detailed, specific, and accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

The critical appraisal accurately provides an evaluation table. The responses provide an accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected with some specificity.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate or vague. The responses provide an inaccurate or vague evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.

0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate and vague or is missing.

Part 4B: Evidence-Based Best Practices

Based on your appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.

32 (32%) – 35 (35%)

The responses accurately and clearly suggest a detailed best practice that is fully aligned to the research reviewed. 

The responses accurately and clearly explain in detail the best practice, with sufficient justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. The response fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the responses provided. 

Accurate, complete, and full APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.

28 (28%) – 31 (31%)

The responses accurately suggest a best practice that is adequately aligned to the research reviewed. 

The responses accurately explain the best practice, with adequately justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed on the best practice explained. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the responses provided. 

Accurate and complete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.

25 (25%) – 27 (27%)

The responses inaccurately or vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed. 

The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate or vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide a vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided. 

Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.

0 (0%) – 24 (24%)

The responses inaccurately and vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed or are missing. 

The responses inaccurately and vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate and vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field, or are missing. A vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained is provided or is missing. The response fails to integrate any resources to support the responses provided. 

Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed or 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.

5 (5%) – 5 (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.

4 (4%) – 4 (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.

3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (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%) – 3 (3%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 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.

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Contains many (five or more) 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, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct APA format with no errors. Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: Research Critical Appraisal 

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains a few (one or two) APA format errors.

3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Contains several (three or four) APA format errors.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Contains many (five or more) APA format errors.

Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric

ORDER Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: Research Critical Appraisal 

Learning Resources 

Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.

  • Chapter 5, “Critically Appraising Quantitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making” (pp. 124–188)
  • Chapter 6, “Critically Appraising Qualitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making” (pp. 189–218)

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010a). Evidence-based practice step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part I. American Journal of Nursing, 110(7), 47–52. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000383935.22721.9c

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010b). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part II: Digging deeper—examining the “keeper” studies. American Journal of Nursing, 110(9), 41–48. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000388264.49427.f9

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010c). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part III: The process of synthesis: Seeing similarities and differences across the body of evidence. American Journal of Nursing, 110(11), 43–51. doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000390523.99066.b5

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Critical appraisal of qualitative evidence. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 15(3), 202–207. doi:10.1177/1078390309338733

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Document: Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template (Word document)

Required Media

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Appraising the Research [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

 

Accessible player –Downloads–Download Video w/CCDownload AudioDownload Transcript

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Interpreting Statistics [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

 

Accessible player –Downloads–Download Video w/CCDownload AudioDownload Transcript

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Review of research: Hierarchy of evidence pyramid [Mutlimedia file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Schulich Library McGill. (2017, June 6). Types of reviews [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/5Rv9z7Mp4kg

Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template

 

Evaluation Table

 

Use this document to complete the evaluation table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

Full APA formatted citation of selected article. Article #1 Article #2 Article #3 Article #4
 

 

 

 

     
Evidence Level *

(I, II, or III)

 

       
Conceptual Framework

 

Describe the theoretical basis for the study (If there is not one mentioned in the article, say that here).**

 

 

 

 

 

     
Design/Method

 

Describe the design and how the study was carried out (In detail, including inclusion/exclusion criteria).

       
Sample/Setting

 

The number and characteristics of

patients, attrition rate, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

     
Major Variables Studied

 

List and define dependent and independent variables

 

 

     
Measurement

 

Identify primary statistics used to answer clinical questions (You need to list the actual tests done).

       
Data Analysis Statistical or

Qualitative findings

 

(You need to enter the actual numbers determined by the statistical tests or qualitative data).

       
Findings and Recommendations

 

General findings and recommendations of the research

       
Appraisal and Study Quality

 

 

Describe the general worth of this research to practice.

 

What are the strengths and limitations of study?

 

What are the risks associated with implementation of the suggested practices or processes detailed in the research?

 

What is the feasibility of use in your practice?

       
 

 

Key findings

 

 

 

       
 

 

Outcomes

 

 

 

       
General Notes/Comments  

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

*These levels are from the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice: Evidence Level and Quality Guide

 

  • Level I

Experimental, randomized controlled trial (RCT), systematic review RTCs with or without meta-analysis

 

  • Level II

Quasi-experimental studies, systematic review of a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, or quasi-experimental studies only, with or without meta-analysis

 

  • Level III

Nonexperimental, systematic review of RCTs, quasi-experimental with/without meta-analysis, qualitative, qualitative systematic review with/without meta-synthesis

  • Level IV

Respected authorities’ opinions, nationally recognized expert committee/consensus panel reports based on scientific evidence

  • Level V

Literature reviews, quality improvement, program evaluation, financial evaluation, case reports, nationally recognized expert(s) opinion based on experiential evidence

 

 

**Note on Conceptual Framework

 

 

  • Researchers create theoretical and conceptual frameworks that include a philosophical and methodological model to help design their work. A formal theory provides context for the outcome of the events conducted in the research. The data collection and analysis are also based on the theoretical and conceptual framework.

 

  • As stated by Grant and Osanloo (2014), “Without a theoretical framework, the structure and vision for a study is unclear, much like a house that cannot be constructed without a blueprint. By contrast, a research plan that contains a theoretical framework allows the dissertation study to be strong and structured with an organized flow from one chapter to the next.”

 

  • Theoretical and conceptual frameworks provide evidence of academic standards and procedure. They also offer an explanation of why the study is pertinent and how the researcher expects to fill the gap in the literature.

 

  • Literature does not always clearly delineate between a theoretical or conceptual framework. With that being said, there are slight differences between the two.

 

References

The Johns Hopkins Hospital/Johns Hopkins University (n.d.). Johns Hopkins nursing dvidence-based practice: appendix C: evidence level and quality guide. Retrieved October 23, 2019 from https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/evidence-based-practice/_docs/appendix_c_evidence_level_quality_guide.pdf

 

Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, Selecting, and Integrating a Theoretical Framework in Dissertation Research: Creating the Blueprint for Your” House”. Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 12-26.

 

Walden University Academic Guides (n.d.). Conceptual & theoretical frameworks overview. Retrieved October 23, 2019 from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/conceptualframework

Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: Research Critical Appraisal 

Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100
Use the following coupon code :
nursingbay