Evidence-Based Practice Project: Evaluation of Literature Table

profileDtjemrxypyt
Rubric_Print_Format-5.xlsx

Rubic_Print_Format

Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points
NUR-550 NUR-550-O500 Evidence-Based Practice Project: Evaluation of Literature Table 150.0
Criteria Percentage Unsatisfactory (0.00%) Less Than Satisfactory (80.00%) Satisfactory (88.00%) Good (92.00%) Excellent (100.00%) Comments Points Earned
Content 100.0%
PICOT 5.0% The PICOT is omitted. NA NA NA The PICOT is clearly and accurately presented.
Articles 10.0% Required number of sources are not included. Article citations and permalinks are omitted. Number of required sources is only partially met. Article citations and permalinks are presented. One or more links do not lead to the intended article. Number of required sources is met, but some sources are outdated or inappropriate. Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are presented, but there are errors. Sources are current and generally appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are presented, but there are minor errors. Sources are current and highly appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are accurate.
Research Question, Hypothesis, Purpose or Aim of Study 10.0% Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for one or more articles is omitted. Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for each article is presented, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout. Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for each article is presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies. Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for each article is adequately presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. A discussion on the research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study is thoroughly and accurately presented for each article.
Study Design 10.0% The study design for one or more article is omitted. The study design for each article is presented, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout. The study design is indicated for each article. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies. The study design is adequately presented for each article. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. A thorough and accurate discussion on the study design for each article is presented.
Setting and Sample 10.0% The setting and sample are omitted for one or more of the articles. The setting and sample are indicated for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout. The setting and sample are indicated for each article. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies. The setting and sample are adequately presented for each article. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. The setting and sample in which the researcher conducted the study are detailed and accurate for each article.
Methods 10.0% Method of study for one or more articles is omitted. Overall, the methods of study are incomplete. The method of study is presented for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout. The method of study for each article is presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies An adequate discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. A thorough and accurate discussion on the method of study for each article is presented.
Analysis and Data Collection 10.0% Analysis and data collection for one or more articles is omitted. Overall, the analysis and data collection are incomplete. Analysis and data collection are presented for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout. Analysis and data collection for each article are presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies. An adequate discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. A thorough and accurate discussion on the analysis and data collection for each article is presented.
Outcomes and Key Findings 10.0% Outcomes and key findings for one or more articles are omitted. Overall, the outcomes and key findings are incomplete. Outcomes and key findings are presented for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout. Outcomes and key findings for each article are presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies. An adequate discussion on outcomes and key findings for each article are presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. A thorough and accurate discussion on the outcomes and key findings collection for each article are presented.
Recommendations 10.0% Researcher recommendations are omitted for one or more of the articles. The recommendations described for three or more articles are inaccurate or incomplete. Researcher recommendations are indicated for each article. The researcher recommendations described for two of the articles are inaccurate or incomplete. Researcher recommendations for each article are presented. Researcher recommendations described for one article are inaccurate or incomplete. Researcher recommendations for each article are accurately presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. Researcher recommendations are accurately and thoroughly described for each article.
Explanation of How Articles Support Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal 10.0% An explanation of how the article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is omitted for one or more of the articles. The explanation for three or more articles is inaccurate or incomplete. An explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. The explanation for two of the articles is inaccurate or incomplete. A general explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. The explanation for one article is inaccurate or incomplete. Support for the evidence-based project proposal is generally evident. An explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. Adequate support for the evidence-based project proposal is demonstrated. A detailed explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. Support for the evidence-based project proposal is clearly evident.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) 5.0% Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Total Weightage 100%