Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations

Premium Quality

Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.

Experienced Writers

Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.

On-Time Delivery

Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.

24/7 Customer Support

Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.

Complete Confidentiality

Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.

Authentic Sources

We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.

Moneyback Guarantee

Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.

Order Tracking

You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.

Course Code	Class Code	Assignment Title	Total Points
NRS-433V	NRS-433V-O500	Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations	200.0
Criteria	Percentage	1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%)	2: Less Than Satisfactory (75.00%)	3: Satisfactory (83.00%)	4: Good (94.00%)	: Excellent (100.00%)	Comments	Points Earned
Content	7						5.0%
Quantitative Studies	Only 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/A	Two articles are presented. Both articles are based on quantitative research.
Background of Study		10.0%	Background 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 Practice					15.0%	Discussion 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 Study	Discussion 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 Study	Discussion 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 Comparison	Anticipated 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 Effectiveness
Thesis Development and Purpose	Paper 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 Construction	Statement 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)	Surface 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.
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)	Template 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)	Sources 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 Weightage	100%

Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations