Critical appraisals are used to broaden understanding and summarize evidence. This helps determine if research evidence is ready for practice. There are certain steps to conducting critical appraisals.
- Locate a scholarly journal article and apply the steps of critical analysis found in your textbook.
- Post your analysis to this discussion board.
Responses need to address all components of the question, demonstrate critical thinking and analysis and include peer-reviewed journal evidence to support the student’s position.
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
NU560-8D-Unit 4 Discussion 2
Just from $13/Page
Please be sure to validate your opinions and ideas with citations and references in APA format.
Please review the rubric to ensure that your response meets the criteria.
Unit 4 Required Resources
Gray, J. R., Grove, S. K. & Sutherland, S. (2017). Burns and Grove’s the practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (8th ed.) . St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Saunders. ISBN 978-0-323-37758-4
Review Chapter 2 pp. 33-34; Chapter 13
University of Calfornia Berkeley (2016). Evaluating resources. (Links to an external site.)Berkeley Library. [Digital resource]. Retrieved from http://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/evaluating-resources
This link provides information on ways to evaluate internet sources for authority and appropriateness to be included in scholarly research.
Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Mazurek-Melynk, B., Williamon, K, M. (2010). Evidence based practice step by step (Links to an external site.). American Journal of Nursing , 110, 5. Retrieved from http://download.lww.com/wolterskluwer_vitalstream_com/PermaLink/NCNJ/A/NCNJ_546_156_2010_08_23_SADFJO_165_SDC216 (Links to an external site.)
University of Adelaide (2014). The JBI approach. (Links to an external site.) Joanna Briggs Institute. Retrieved from https://joannabriggs.org/
(Links to an external site.)University of Minnesota (2017). Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations (Links to an external site.). UM Bio-Medical Library. Retrieved from https://hsl.lib.umn.edu/biomed/help/levels-evidence-and-grades-recommendations
Evidence Based Health Care — Practice guidelines levels of evidence and grades of recommendations used by the National Guideline Clearinghouse.
Uman, L. S. (2011). Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (Links to an external site.). Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 20(1), 57–59. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3024725/ (Links to an external site.)
Walden University (2019). Common assignments: Literature review matrix (Links to an external site.). [Website]. Retrieved from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/assignments/literaturereview/matrix
NU560 Discussion 4.2 Rubric
NU560 Discussion 4.2 Rubric
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent
NU560-CO1; NU560-CO2
6 pts
100%
Initial post addresses all of the required prompt elements in the discussion and demonstrates an exemplary understanding of course content and topic.
5.5 pts
92%
Initial post addresses all of the required prompt elements in the discussion and demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of course content and topic.
5 pts
83%
Initial post is missing one important prompt element and/or demonstrates a basic understanding of course content and topic.
4.5 pts
75%
Initial post is missing more than one important prompt element and/or demonstrates a limited understanding of course content and topic.
4 pts
67%
Initial post does not address discussion prompt elements, and/or does not demonstrate understanding of course content and topic and/or initial post is poorly paraphrased even if accompanied by in-text citations.
0 pts
0 %
Initial post was not submitted and/or not submitted on time and/or initial post demonstrates copying and pasting with or without proper use of quotations or supporting in-text citations.
6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis
NU560-CO1; NU560-CO2
6 pts
100%
The analysis of the topic includes breadth and depth, is aligned to the unit topic, relates to the course content and personal analysis is supported by exemplary references and examples.
5.5 pts
92%
The analysis of the topic is justified, and aligned to the unit topic, and personal analysis is supported by comprehensive references and/or examples.
5 pts
83%
There is a basic analysis of the topic and personal analysis is supported by basic references and/or examples.
4.5 pts
75%
There is minimal evidence of analysis of the topic and/or personal analysis is supported by limited references and/or examples.
4 pts
67%
There is no evidence of analysis of the topic and/or personal analysis is not supported by references and/or examples.
0 pts
0%
Initial post was not submitted and/or not submitted on time and/or analysis had no relationship to the topic and/or initial post demonstrates copying and pasting with or without proper use of quotations or supporting in-text citations.
6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCollaboration
PRICE-E
6 pts
100%
Collaborates with fellow learners at an exemplary level relating the discussion to relevant course concepts and extending the conversation with substantive content.
5.5 pts
92%
Collaborates with fellow learners at a comprehensive level relating the discussion to relevant course concepts and extending the conversation with substantive content.
5 pts
83%
Collaborates with fellow learners at a basic level relating the discussion to some course concepts and extending the conversation with basic content and/or postings are not submitted on a minimum of 3 separate days.
4.5 pts
75%
Limited collaboration with fellow learners and makes little connection to course content and/or does not extend the conversation.
4 pts
67%
Collaborates with fellow learners but only one response post was submitted and/or response post(s) are poorly paraphrased even if accompanied by in-text citations.
0 pts
0%
No response posts were submitted and/or not submitted on time and/or there is no relationship between the response posts and the discussion prompts and/or one or more response posts demonstrate copying and pasting with or without proper use of quotations or supporting in-text citations.
6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting
1 pts
100%
Posts in this discussion are well written and well organized demonstrating exemplary scholarly writing. Mechanics (spelling and punctuation) and grammar are excellent.
0.9 pts
92%
Posts in this discussion are well written and well organized demonstrating comprehensive scholarly writing and/or have 1-2 errors in mechanics and/or grammar.
0.8 pts
83%
Posts in this discussion are basic examples of scholarly writing and/or have 3 errors in mechanics and/or grammar.
0.7 pts
75%
Posts in this discussion are not clear and/or lack organization and/or have 4 or more errors in mechanics and/or grammar.
0.6 pts
67%
Posts in this discussion lack evidence of clear, organized scholarly writing. Errors interfere with reading and/or understanding of content.
0 pts
0%
Posts were not submitted and/or one or more posts demonstrate copying and pasting with or without proper use of quotations or supporting in-text citations.
1 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA
PRICE-I
1 pts
100%
Posts in this discussion demonstrate in-text citations of sources and references in proper APA style and formatting.
0.9 pts
92%
Posts in this discussion demonstrate in-text citations of sources and references but have 1-2 minor APA errors.
0.8 pts
83%
Posts in this discussion demonstrate in-text citations of sources and references but have 3-4 APA errors.
0.7 pts
75%
Posts in this discussion demonstrate in-text citations of sources and references but have 5-6 APA errors.
0.6 pts
67%
Posts in this discussion do not provide sufficient in-text citations and/or references and/or have 7 or more APA errors.
0 pts
0%
Posts were not submitted and/or one or more posts demonstrate copying and pasting with or without proper use of quotations or supporting in-text citations.
1 pts
Total Points: 20
