NUR-550 Assignment: Evidence-Based Practice Project, Evaluation of Literature Table

Assessment Description
The purpose of this assignment is to provide research evidence in support of the PICOT you developed for your selected topic.

Conduct a search for 10 peer-reviewed, translational research articles published within the last 5 years that demonstrate support for your PICOT. You may include previous research articles from assignments completed in this course. Use the “Literature Evaluation Table” provided to evaluate the articles and explain how the research supports your PICOT.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

Once your instructor returns this assignment, review the feedback and make any revisions necessary. If you are directed by your instructor to select different articles in order to meet the assignment criteria or to better support your PICOT, make these changes accordingly. You will use the literature evaluated in this assignment for all subsequent assignments you develop as part of your evidence-based practice project proposal in this course and in NUR-590, during which you will synthesize all of the sections into a final written paper detailing your evidence-based practice project proposal.

Refer to the “Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal â€“ Assignment Overview” document for an overview of the evidence-based practice project proposal assignments.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting 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.

Attachments
NUR-550-RS5-LiteratureEvaluationTable.docx

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Rubric Criteria

PICOT
7.5 points
Criteria Description
PICOT

5. Excellent
7.5 points
The PICOT is clearly and accurately presented.

4. Good
6.9 points
NA

3. Satisfactory
6.6 points
NA

2. Less Than Satisfactory
6 points
NA

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The PICOT is omitted.

Articles
15 points
Criteria Description
Articles

5. Excellent
15 points
Sources are current and highly appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are accurate.

4. Good
13.8 points
Sources are current and generally appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are presented, but there are minor errors.

3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
Number of required sources is met, but some sources are outdated or inappropriate. Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are presented, but there are errors.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
Number of required sources is only partially met. Article citations and permalinks are presented. One or more links do not lead to the intended article.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Required number of sources are not included. Article citations and permalinks are omitted.

Research Question, Hypothesis, Purpose or Aim of Study
15 points
Criteria Description
Research Question, Hypothesis, Purpose or Aim of Study

5. Excellent
15 points
A discussion on the research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study is thoroughly and accurately presented for each article.

4. Good
13.8 points
Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for each article is adequately presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.

3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for each article is presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for each article is presented, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for one or more articles is omitted.

Study Design
15 points
Criteria Description
Study Design

5. Excellent
15 points
A thorough and accurate discussion on the study design for each article is presented.

4. Good
13.8 points
The study design is adequately presented for each article. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.

3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
The study design is indicated for each article. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
The study design for each article is presented, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The study design for one or more article is omitted.

Setting and Sample
15 points
Criteria Description
Setting and Sample

5. Excellent
15 points
The setting and sample in which the researcher conducted the study are detailed and accurate for each article.

4. Good
13.8 points
The setting and sample are adequately presented for each article. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.

3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
The setting and sample are indicated for each article. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
The setting and sample are indicated for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The setting and sample are omitted for one or more of the articles.

Methods
15 points
Criteria Description
Methods

5. Excellent
15 points
A thorough and accurate discussion on the method of study for each article is presented.

4. Good
13.8 points
An adequate discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.

3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
The method of study for each article is presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies

2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
The method of study is presented for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Method of study for one or more articles is omitted. Overall, the methods of study are incomplete.

Analysis and Data Collection
15 points
Criteria Description
Analysis and Data Collection

5. Excellent
15 points
A thorough and accurate discussion on the analysis and data collection for each article is presented.

4. Good
13.8 points
An adequate discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.

3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
Analysis and data collection for each article are presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
Analysis and data collection are presented for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Analysis and data collection for one or more articles is omitted. Overall, the analysis and data collection are incomplete.

Outcomes and Key Findings
15 points
Criteria Description
Outcomes and Key Findings

5. Excellent
15 points
A thorough and accurate discussion on the outcomes and key findings collection for each article are presented.

4. Good
13.8 points
An adequate discussion on outcomes and key findings for each article are presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.

3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
Outcomes and key findings for each article are presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
Outcomes and key findings are presented for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Outcomes and key findings for one or more articles are omitted. Overall, the outcomes and key findings are incomplete.

Recommendations
15 points
Criteria Description
Recommendations

5. Excellent
15 points
Researcher recommendations are accurately and thoroughly described for each article.

4. Good
13.8 points
Researcher recommendations for each article are accurately presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.

3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
Researcher recommendations for each article are presented. Researcher recommendations described for one article are inaccurate or incomplete.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
Researcher recommendations are indicated for each article. The researcher recommendations described for two of the articles are inaccurate or incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Researcher recommendations are omitted for one or more of the articles. The recommendations described for three or more articles are inaccurate or incomplete.

Explanation of How Articles Support Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal
15 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of How Articles Support Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal

5. Excellent
15 points
A detailed explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. Support for the evidence-based project proposal is clearly evident.

4. Good
13.8 points
An explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. Adequate support for the evidence-based project proposal is demonstrated.

3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
A general explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. The explanation for one article is inaccurate or incomplete. Support for the evidence-based project proposal is generally evident.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
An explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. The explanation for two of the articles is inaccurate or incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
An explanation of how the article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is omitted for one or more of the articles. The explanation for three or more articles is inaccurate or incomplete.

Mechanics of Writing
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

5. Excellent
7.5 points
The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. Good
6.9 points
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.

3. Satisfactory
6.6 points
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
6 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.

Total
150 points