Assignment Criteria

5 points

3 points

2 points

1 point

All topics addressed and all questions fully answered.

All topics/criteria addressed and most questions fully answered

All topics/criteria addressed and most questions partially answered.

One or more topics not addressed or completely answered.

Quality/Accuracy of Information

4 points

0 points

Information clearly relates to the main topic. It includes several supporting details and/or examples.

Information clearly relates to the main topic. It provides supporting details and/or examples.

Information clearly relates to the main topic. A few details and/or examples are given.

Information has little or nothing to do with the main topic.

Organization

1 point

0 point

Information is very organized with well-constructed paragraphs and levels of heading.

Information organized with well-constructed paragraphs and levels of heading

There is an attempt at organization but errors exist. No levels of heading.

The information or overall structure appears disorganized.

Sources

0.5 point

0.25 points

All references are from relevant peer-reviewed sources, within a 5-year timeframe or are classic sources.

The majority of references from relevant peer-reviewed sources, within a 5-year timeframe or are classic sources.

Some references are from non-peer-reviewed sources or are older than 5 years.

Majority of references are from non-peer-reviewed sources or are older than 5 years or

Earned Points

Up to 10% of the assigned points (total points of assignment) can be deducted from the earned points for errors in APA style [title page, introduction, purpose statement, level heading, conclusion, references, citations, and format], spelling, and/or grammar.

Final Total

Aspect of the Report

Critiquing Questions

Answer

Yes/No

Analysis

Title

· Is the title a good one, suggesting the phenomena and the group or community understudy?

Abstract

· Did the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the main features of the report (problem, methods, results, conclusion)?

Introduction

Statement of the Problem

· Was the problem stated unambiguously, and was it easy to identify?

· Is the problem significant for nursing?

· Did the problem statement build a persuasive argument for the new study?

· Was a qualitative approach appropriate?

Research Questions

· Were research questions explicitly stated? If not, was their absence justified?

Literature Review

· Did the report adequately summarize the existing body of knowledge related to the problem?

· Did the literature review provide a strong basis for the new study?

Conceptual/Theoretical Underpinnings

· Were key concepts adequately defined conceptually?

Method

Protection of Human Rights

· Were appropriate procedures used to safeguard the rights of study participants?

· Was the study externally reviewed by an IRB/ethics review board?

Research Design

· Was the identified research tradition congruent with the methods used to collect and analyze data?

· Was an adequate amount of time spent with study participants?

· Was there an adequate number of contacts with study participants?

Sample and Setting

· Was the population adequately identified?

· Was the sample described in sufficient detail?

· Was the approach used to recruit participants or gain access to the site productive and appropriate?

· Was the best possible method of sampling used to enhance information richness and address the needs of the study?

Data Collection

· Were the methods of data gathering appropriate?

· Were data collected through two or more methods to achieve triangulation?

· Was a sufficient amount of data gathered?

Procedures

· Were data collection and recording procedures adequately described and do they appear appropriate?

· Were the staff who collected data appropriated trained?

Enhancement of trustworthiness

· Did the researchers use effective strategies to enhance the trustworthiness and integrity of the study?

· Were the methods for trustworthiness adequate?

Results

Data Analysis

· Were the data management and data analysis methods adequately described?

Findings

· Were the findings effectively summarized, with good use of excerpts and supporting arguments?

· Did the themes adequately capture the meaning of the data?

· Did the analysis yield an insightful, provocative, authentic, and meaningful picture of the phenomenon under investigation?

Theoretical integration

· Were the themes or patterns logically connected to each other to form a convincing and integrated whole?

· Were figures, maps, or models used effectively to summarize conceptualizations?

Discussion

Interpretation of the findings

· Were major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of prior studies?

Implications/recommendations

· Did the researchers discuss the implications of the study for clinical practice or further research-and were those implications reasonable and complete?

General Issues

Presentation

· Was the report well-written, organized, and sufficiently detailed for critical analysis?

· Was the description of the methods, findings, and interpretations sufficiently rich and vivid?

Researcher credibility

· Do the researchers’ clinical, substantive, or methodologic qualifications and experience enhance confidence in the findings and their interpretation?

Summary Assessment

· Does the study contribute any meaningful evidence that can be used in nursing practice or that is useful to the nursing discipline?