Description
EVIDENCE-BASED PROJECT, PART 3: CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF RESEARCH
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.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
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 3A: 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 3B: 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.
BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 7
Submit Part 3A and 3B of your Evidence-Based Project.
SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as MD4Assgn+last name+first initial.
Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric
NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 3A: Critical Appraisal of ResearchCritical 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 to >40.0 pts
Excellent
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 to >35.0 pts
Good
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 to >31.0 pts
Fair
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.
31 to >0 pts
Poor
The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate and vague or is missing.
45 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 3B: Evidence-Based Best PracticesEvidence-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 the selected resources.
35 to >31.0 pts
Excellent
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 the four peer reviewed articles.
31 to >27.0 pts
Good
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.
27 to >24.0 pts
Fair
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.
24 to >0 pts
Poor
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.
35 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResource Synthesis
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
The response fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the responses provided.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the responses provided.
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided.
2 to >0 pts
Poor
The response fails to integrate any resources to support the responses provided.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten 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 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. …A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. …Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated but are brief and not descriptive.
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
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.
2 to >0 pts
Poor
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. …No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion is provided.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
2 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten 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 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Contains a few (one or two) APA format errors.
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (three or four) APA format errors.
2 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (five or more) APA format errors.
5 pts
Total Points: 100
Unformatted Attachment Preview
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
3A: Critical Appraisal of Research
Article #1
Article #2
Article #3
Article #4
Full APA formatted citation of
selected article.
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
© 2021 Walden University, LLC
1
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
© 2021 Walden University, LLC
2
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
© 2021 Walden University, LLC
3
*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 metaanalysis
•
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
•
The following information is from Walden academic guides which helps explain conceptual frameworks and the reasons they are used in research. Here is the link
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/conceptualframework
•
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.
© 2021 Walden University, LLC
4
References
The Johns Hopkins Hospital/Johns Hopkins University (n.d.). Johns Hopkins nursing evidence-based practice: appendix C: evidence level and
quality guide. 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.
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/conceptualframework
© 2021 Walden University, LLC
5
Learning Resources
•
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2023). Evidence-based practice in
nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
o Chapter 6, “Critically Appraising Quantitative Evidence for Clinical
Decision Making” (pp. 189–228)
•
Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010).
Evidence-based practice step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part
I. American Journal of NursingLinks to an external site., 110(7), 47–52.
doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000383935.22721.9c
Fineout-Overhold, E., Melnyk, B.M., Stillwell, S.B., & Williamson, K.M. (2010).
Evidence-based practice step-by-step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part
II. American Journal of NursingLinks to an external site., 110(7), 47-52
Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B., Stillwell, S., & Williamson, K. (2010). Critical
appraisal of the evidence: Part III the process of synthesis: Seeing similarities
and differences across the body of evidence.American Journal of NursingLinks
to an external site., 110(11), 43-51.
doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000390523.99066.b5
Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Critical appraisal of
qualitative evidence. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses
AssociationLinks to an external site., 15(3), 202–207.
doi:10.1177/1078390309338733
•
•
•
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
