Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations 

Write a critical appraisal that demonstrates comprehension of two quantitative research studies. Use the “Research Critique Guidelines – Part II” document to organize your essay. Successful completion of this assignment requires that you provide a rationale, include examples, and reference content from the study in your responses.

Use the practice problem and two quantitative, peer‐reviewed research articles you identified in the Topic 1 assignment to complete this assignment.

In a 1,000–1,250 word essay, summarize two quantitative studies, explain the ways in which the findings might be used in nursing practice, and address ethical considerations associated with the conduct of the study.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

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 required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.

AttachmentsNRS-433V-RS3-ResearchCritiqueGuidelinesPart II.docx
RUBRIC

Attempt Start Date: 27-May-2019 at 12:00:00 AM

Due Date: 02-Jun-2019 at 11:59:59 PM

Maximum Points: 200.0

Rough Draft Research Critique – Quantitative

No of Criteria: 11 Achievement Levels: 5CriteriaAchievement LevelsDescriptionPercentage1: Unsatisfactory0.00 %2: Less Than Satisfactory75.00 %3: Satisfactory83.00 %4: Good94.00 %5: Excellent100.00 %Content75.0     Quantitative Studies5.0Only one article is presented. Neither of the articles presented use quantitative research.Two articles are presented. Of the articles presented, only one article is based on quantitative research.N/AN/ATwo articles are presented. Both articles are based on quantitative research.Background of Study10.0Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is incomplete.Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is included but lacks relevant details and explanation.Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is partially complete and includes some relevant details and explanation.Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is complete and includes relevant details and explanation.Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is thorough with substantial relevant details and extensive explanation.Article Support of Nursing Practice15.0Discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is incomplete.A summary of how articles support the PICOT question is presented. It is unclear how the articles can be used to answer the proposed PICOT question. Significant information and detail is required.A general discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate general support in answering the proposed PICOT question. It is unclear how the interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in the PICOT question. Some rational or information is needed.A discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate support in answering the proposed PICOT question. The interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in the PICOT question. Minor detail or rational is needed for clarity or support.A clear discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate strong support in answering the proposed PICOT question. The interventions and comparison groups in the articles strongly compare to those identified in the PICOT question.Method of Study15.0Discussion on the method of study for each article is omitted. The comparison of study methods is omitted or incomplete.A partial summary of the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is incomplete. A benefit and a limitation of each method are omitted or incomplete. There are significant inaccuracies.A general discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is summarized. A benefit and a limitation of each method are summarized. There some inaccuracies or partial omissions. More information is needed.A discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is generally described. A benefit and a limitation of each method are presented. There minor are inaccuracies. Some detail is required for accuracy or clarity.A thorough discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is described in detail. A benefit and a limitation of each method are presented. The discussion demonstrates a solid understanding of research methods.Results of Study15.0Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is incomplete.A summary of the study results includes findings and implications for nursing practice but lacks relevant details and explanation. There are some omissions or inaccuracies.Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is generally presented. Overall, the discussion includes some relevant details and explanation.Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is complete and includes relevant details and explanation.Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is thorough with substantial relevant details and extensive explanation.Anticipated Outcomes and Outcomes Comparison15.0Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are omitted or are unrealistic. Comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes is incomplete.Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are partially summarized. Comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes contains omissions of key information. It is unclear how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare.Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are summarized. Comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes is generally presented. More information is needed to fully establish how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare.Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are discussed. A comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes of the PICOT is presented. An explanation of how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare is presented. Some detail is needed for clarity.Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are thoroughly discussed. A detailed comparison of research article outcomes to the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT is presented. An explanation of how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare is presented in detail.Organization and Effectiveness15.0     Thesis Development and Purpose5.0Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.Argument Logic and Construction5.0Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.Argument is clear and convincing and presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)5.0Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.Format10.0     Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)5.0Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.All format elements are correct.Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)5.0Sources are not documented.Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.Total Percentage  100

Instructions

The web-based healthcare information assessment affords the opportunity to assess healthcare education on the internet. As future professional nurses, it is imperative you provide your clients with appropriate recommendations for credible health information on the internet.

The goal of this assessment is for you to evaluate a website of your choosing (e.g., the American Heart Association the American Diabetes Association or  Web MD, Mayo Clinic) following the HONcode criteria (Health on the Net) available in this module’s Reading and Resources folder.

 Review the HON (Honor of Code) criteria (https://www.healthonnet.org/HONcode/Conduct.html  

 https://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Patients/Visitor/visitor.html ), then select a health-based website to review if it meets the standards of HON Code.  

For additional details, please refer to the Rubric attached below for further instructions!