Literature Evaluation Table Nursing Practice

Literature Evaluation Table Nursing Practice

In nursing practice, accurate identification and application of research is essential to achieving successful outcomes. Being able to articulate the information and successfully summarize relevant peer-reviewed articles in a scholarly fashion helps to support the student’s ability and confidence to further develop and synthesize the progressively more complex assignments that constitute the components of the course change proposal capstone project.

For this assignment, the student will provide a synopsis of eight peer-reviewed articles from nursing journals using an evaluation table that determines the level and strength of evidence for each of the eight articles. The articles should be current within the last 5 years and closely relate to the PICOT statement developed earlier in this course. The articles may include quantitative research, descriptive analyses, longitudinal studies, or meta-analysis articles. A systematic review may be used to provide background information for the purpose or problem identified in the proposed capstone project. Use the “Literature Evaluation Table” resource to complete this assignment.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and in-text citations and references should be presented using APA documentation guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.

AttachmentsNRS-490-RS-LiteratureEvaluationTable.docx
RUBRIC

Attempt Start Date: 16-Dec-2019 at 12:00:00 AM

Due Date: 22-Dec-2019 at 11:59:59 PM

Maximum Points: 75.0

Literature Evaluation Table Nursing Practice

Literature Evaluation Table – Rubric
No of Criteria: 13 Achievement Levels: 5CriteriaAchievement LevelsDescriptionPercentageUnsatisfactory 0-71%0.00 %Less Than Satisfactory 72-75%75.00 %Satisfactory 76-79%79.00 %Good 80-89%89.00 %Excellent 90-100%100.00 %Article Selection100.0 Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article5.0Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is not included.Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present.Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is clearly provided and well developed.Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.Article Title and Year Published 5.0Article title and year published section is not included.Article title and year published section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Article title and year published section is present.Article title and year published section is clearly provided and well developed.Article title and year published section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of Study10.0Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is not included.Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present.Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is clearly provided and well developed.Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)5.0Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is not included.Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present.Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is clearly provided and well developed.Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.Setting or Sample5.0Setting or sample section is not included.Setting or sample section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Setting or sample section is present.Setting or sample section is clearly provided and well developed.Setting or sample section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.Methods: Intervention or Instruments5.0Methods: Intervention or instruments section is not included.Methods: Intervention or instruments section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Methods: Intervention or instruments section is present.Methods: Intervention or instruments section is clearly provided and well developed.Methods: Intervention or instruments section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.Analysis10.0Analysis section is not included.Analysis section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Analysis section is present.Analysis section is clearly provided and well developed.Analysis section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.Key Findings10.0Key findings section is not included.Key findings section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Key findings section is present.Key findings section is clearly provided and well developed.Key findings section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting Literature Evaluation Table Nursing Practice