Johns Hopkins Nursing Non-Research Appraisal tool Assignment | Custom Homework Help

The purpose of this assignment is to provide the graduate nursing student opportunity to practice reading and critiquing research articles for application to an evidence-based practice.

Activity Learning Outcomes

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Johns Hopkins Nursing Non-Research Appraisal tool Assignment | Custom Homework Help
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Through this assignment, the student will demonstrate the ability to:

Integrate evidence-based practice and research to support advancement of holistic nursing care in diverse healthcare settings. (PO 1)
Integrate knowledge related to evidence-based practice and person-centered care to improve healthcare outcomes. (PO 1, 5)
Develop knowledge related to research and evidence-based practice as a basis for designing and critiquing research studies. (PO 1, 5)
Analyze research findings and evidence-based practice to advanced holistic nursing care initiatives that promote positive healthcare outcomes. (PO 1, 5)
Due Date: Sunday 11:59 PM MT at the end of Week 4

Students are expected to submit assignments by the time they are due. Assignments submitted after the due date and time will receive a deduction of 10% of the total points possible for that assignment for each day the assignment is late. Assignments will be accepted, with penalty as described, up to a maximum of three days late, after which point a zero will be recorded for the assignment. Quizzes and discussions are not considered assi gnments and are not part of the late assignment policy.

Total Points Possible: 130 points

Directions and Assignment Criteria

Students will critique a research article in weeks 4, 5 & 6 (3 total) as follows:

Week 4: Non-research appraisal (Links to an external site.): Guidelines and Reviews

Week 5: Quantitative Methodology

Week 6: Qualitative Methodology

Each critique will require a two-three page written analysis of the article. The paper should include:

Introduction

Article topic/focus
Author(s)
Aim of assignment
Critique of Article

The article critique should be a methodological review specific to type of article (for example, qualitative or quantitative) . The analysis must be two to three pages and detailed using the text and resources. The content of the review should also include:

Ethical review
Analysis of findings
Limitations
Discussion
Application (translation) to practice specialty
Future implications
In addition, students must complete the Johns Hopkins Research Appraisal Tool that is applicable to the type of study design (qualitative, quantitative or non-research evidence) for the week. Refer to the rubric for additional requirements.

Preparing the Assignment

Week 4

Non-research appraisal: Guideline or Systematic Review

Select a guideline or systematic review article from the Week 4 list.
Write a two-three (2-3) page critique of the article in a Word Doc integrating your course readings. Be sure to include a citation for your article using APA format.
Complete the Johns Hopkins Non-research evidence review document.
Submit both through TurnItIn by Sunday 11:59pm MT of week 4
Format & Presentation Requirements

APA Format According to the current edition
Word Doc per assignment requirements.
Word Doc Format: Cover page, no abstract, introduction (no heading per APA), body of the paper/review, reference list, appendix with Johns Hopkins appraisal doc. For review sections refer to your readings and the Johns Hopkins Research Appraisal Tool.
Article title, author, journal, publication date
Evidence level and quality
Analysis of the study methodology (specific to study type, e.g., qualitative versus quantitative versus non-research)
Reference list should include the chosen article and other resources used to construct the review, such as course textbook, Johns Hopkins Evidence Based Practice: Model and Guidelines, and How to Read a Paper by Greenhalgh (2014).

ASSIGNMENT CONTENT

Category

Points

%

Description

Introduction

10

8%

Required content for this section includes:

Introduction to chosen article: Provide introduction to article topic/focus, authors and specific aim of assignment.
Succinct overview of assignment focus.
Critique of Article

50

38%

Required content for this section includes:

Methodological review specific to type (non-research versus research): (use text and resources)
Ethical review (not always present with guidelines or systematic reviews)
Analysis of findings
Limitations
Discussion
Application to practice (translation)
Future implications
Johns Hopkins Appraisal Tool

50

38%

All sections of the Appraisal Tool are completed for the correct article review (for example, the non-research tool is used for guidelines, the qualitative tool is used for qualitative review).

110

84%

Total CONTENT Points= 110 pts

ASSIGNMENT FORMAT

Category

Points

%

Description

APA (current edition)

15

12%

Requirements:

Cover (title) page
Running head
No abstract
Introduction (no heading per APA)
Body of paper and reference page must follow APA guidelines as found in the current edition of the manual. This includes the use of headings for each section of the paper except for the introduction where no heading is used.
Syntax, grammar, spelling

5

4%

Rules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are followed and consistent with formal written work as found in the current edition of the APA manual.

20

16%

Total FORMAT Points= 20 pts

130

100%

ASSIGNMENT TOTAL=130 points

Rubric
NR505NP WK4,5,6 Article Critique_SEPT19 (1)
NR505NP WK4,5,6 Article Critique_SEPT19 (1)
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Introduction
Required content for this section includes:
• Introduction to chosen article
• Succinct overview of assignment focus.
10.0 pts
Excellent
Content includes well-written, succinct, information that includes: Article topic/focus, authors and specific aim of assignment.
9.0 pts
V. Good
Content is well-written but omits or is thin in one area.
8.0 pts
Satisfactory
Section content is basic in its explanation of the article (overview) and the purpose of the assignment but lacks specific detail and depth.
5.0 pts
Needs Improvement
All content is included but difficult to piece together in its explanation of the article (overview) and the purpose of the assignment OR a piece of the content is missing, for example, overview of assignment focus, yet what is written is well stated.
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Missing OR Section content is vague in its introduction of the article (overview) and the purpose of the assignment is missing OR article overview is missing, and purpose of the assignment is vague.)
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Critique of Article
Required content for this section includes:
• Methodological review specific to type (non-research versus research): (use text and resources)
• Ethical review (not always present with guidelines or systematic reviews)
• Analysis of findings
• Limitations
• Discussion
• Application to practice (translation)
• Future implications
50.0 pts
Excellent
All content is included in the critique with comprehensive definitions, examples and with in-text citations that support the article evaluation with depth.
46.0 pts
V. Good
All content is included in the critique. One or two sections may be included without depth: For example, Definitions, examples and with in-text citations that support the article evaluation with depth. Or: All content has explanatory depth of analysis including definitions, examples and in-text citations supporting the analysis, however, a content area may be missing (such as ethical review or limitations)
42.0 pts
Satisfactory
Two or three content areas are missing, or all content areas are included but there is inconsistent depth/ integration of definitions, examples and in-text citations that support the article evaluation with depth
25.0 pts
Needs Improvement
Four or more content areas are missing, or all content areas are included but there is little to no depth/ integration of definitions, examples and in-text citations that support the article evaluation with depth.
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Critique is vague, without structure, without discernible integration of definitions, examples, and in-text citations that support the writing.
50.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Johns Hopkins Appraisal Tool
50.0 pts
Excellent
All sections of the Appraisal Tool are completed for the correct article review (for example, the non-research tool is used for guidelines, the qualitative tool is used for qualitative review).
46.0 pts
V. Good
Tool is included, is the correct tool, and is missing: A. Non-Evidence Tool: 1 of the 6 sections B. Evidence Tool: 1 section missing
42.0 pts
Satisfactory
Tool is included, is the correct tool, and is missing: A. Non-Evidence Tool 2 or 3 of the 6 sections B. Evidence Tool: 2 sections missing
25.0 pts
Needs Improvement
Tool is included and is missing: A. Non-Evidence Tool 4 or more of the 6 sections B. Evidence Tool – 3 more sections missing.
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Tool is missing or the wrong tool is used.
50.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Organization & Format
Requirements:
• Cover (title) page
• No abstract
• Introduction
• Body of paper and reference page must follow APA guidelines as found in the 6th edition of the manual. This includes the use of headings for each section of the paper except for the introduction where no heading is used.
15.0 pts
Excellent
All aspects of paper follow APA guidelines (cover, no abstract, introduction, headings (not on introduction), body of paper and reference page
14.0 pts
V. Good
1-3 APA errors
12.0 pts
Satisfactory
4-5 APA errors
8.0 pts
Needs Improvement
6-9 APA errors
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
10 or greater APA errors
15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Syntax, grammar, spelling
Rules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are followed and consistent with formal written work as found in the current edition of the APA manual.
5.0 pts
Excellent
There are no grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors.
4.0 pts
V. Good
1-3 grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors.
3.0 pts
Satisfactory
4-5 grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors.
2.0 pts
Needs Improvement
6-9 grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors.
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
10 or greater grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors.
5.0 pts
Total Points: 130.0

The article list for review and critique is attached and the template has also been uploaded.

 

  Evidence level and quality rating:  

 

 

Article title: Number:
Author(s): Publication date:
Journal:
Setting: Sample (composition and size):
Does this evidence address my EBP question?

Yes

No-Do not proceed with appraisal of this evidence

 

Clinical Practice Guidelines LEVELIV

Systematically developed recommendations from nationally recognized experts based on research evidence or expert consensus panel

ConsensusorPositionStatementLEVELIV

Systematically developed recommendations, based on research and nationally recognized expert opinion, that guide members of a professional organization in decision-making for an issue of concern

§  Are the types of evidence included identified? o  Yes o  No
§  Were appropriate stakeholders involved in the development of recommendations? o  Yes o  No
§  Are groups to which recommendations apply and do not apply clearly stated? o  Yes o  No
§  Have potential biases been eliminated? o  Yes o  No
§  Does each recommendation have an identified level of evidence stated? o  Yes o  No
§  Are recommendations clear? o  Yes o  No
Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
Complete the corresponding quality rating section.                  

 

 

 

 

 

LiteraturereviewLEVELV

Summary of selected published literature including scientific and nonscientific such as reports of organizational experience and opinions of experts

Integrative review LEVELV

Summary of research evidence and theoretical literature; analyzes, compares themes, notes gaps in the selected literature

·    Is subject matter to be reviewed clearly stated? o  Yes o  No
·    Is literature relevant and up-to-date (most sources are within the past five years or classic)? o  Yes o  No
·    Of the literature reviewed, is there a meaningful analysis of the conclusions across the articles included in the review? o  Yes o  No
·    Are gaps in the literature identified? o  Yes o  No
·    Are recommendations made for future practice or study? o  Yes o  No
Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
Complete the corresponding quality rating section.

 

Expert opinion LEVELV

Opinion of one or more individuals based on clinical expertise

·     Has the individual published or presented on the topic? o  Yes o  No
·     Is the author’s opinion based on scientific evidence? o  Yes o  No
·     Is the author’s opinion clearly stated? o  Yes o  No
·     Are potential biases acknowledged? o  Yes o  No
Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
Complete the corresponding quality rating section.

 

Organizational Experience

o  Quality improvement LEVEL V

Cyclical method to examine workflows, processes, or systems with a specific organization

o  Financial evaluation LEVEL V

Economic evaluation that applies analytic techniques to identify, measure, and compare the cost and outcomes of two or more alternative programs or interventions

o  Program evaluation LEVEL V

Systematic assessment of the processes and/or outcomes of a program; can involve both quaNtitative and quaLitative methods

Setting: Sample Size/Composition:
·         Was the aim of the project clearly stated? ❑ Yes ❑ No  
·         Was the method fully described? ❑ Yes ❑ No  
·         Were process or outcome measures identified? ❑ Yes ❑ No  
·         Were results fully described? ❑ Yes ❑ No  
·         Was interpretation clear and appropriate? ❑ Yes ❑ No  
·         Are components of cost/benefit or cost effectiveness analysis described? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑   N/A
Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
Complete the corresponding quality rating section.

 

 

 

 

 

Case report LEVEL V

In-depth look at a person or group or another social unit

§ Is the purpose of the case report clearly stated? ❑ Yes ❑ No
§ Is the case report clearly presented? ❑ Yes ❑ No
§ Are the findings of the case report supported by relevant theory or research? ❑ Yes ❑ No
§ Are the recommendations clearly stated and linked to the findings? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
Complete the corresponding quality rating.

 

 

 

 

 

Community standard, clinician experience, or consumer preference LEVEL V

❑   Communitystandard:Currentpracticeforcomparablesettingsinthecommunity

❑   Clinicianexperience:Knowledgegainedthroughpracticeexperience

❑   Consumerpreference:Knowledgegainedthroughlifeexperience

Information Source(s) Number  of Sources
·    Source of information has credible experience ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑   N/A
·    Opinions are clearly stated ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑   N/A
·    Evidence obtained is consistent ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑   N/A
Findings That Help You Answer the EBP Question
Complete the corresponding quality rating section.

 

 

Quality Rating for Clinical Practice Guidelines, Consensus, or Position Statements (Level IV)
A High quality

Material officially sponsored by a professional, public, or private organization or a government agency; documentation of a systematic literature search strategy; consistent results with sufficient numbers of well-designed studies; criteria-based evaluation of overall scientific strength and quality of included studies and definitive conclusions; national expertise clearly evident; developed or revised within the past five years.

B Good quality

Material officially sponsored by a professional, public, or private organization or a government agency; reasonably thorough and appropriate systematic literature search strategy; reasonably consistent results, sufficient numbers of well-designed studies; evaluation of strengths and limitations of included studies with fairly definitive conclusions; national expertise clearly evident; developed or revised within the past five years.

C Low quality or major flaw

Material not sponsored by an official organization or agency; undefined, poorly defined, or limited literature search strategy; no evaluation of strengths and limitations of included studies; insufficient evidence with inconsistent results; conclusions cannot be drawn; not revised within the past five years.

Quality Rating for Organizational Experience (Level V)
A High quality

Clear aims and objectives; consistent results across multiple settings; formal quality improvement or financial evaluation methods used; definitive conclusions; consistent recommendations with thorough reference to scientific evidence.

B Good quality

Clear aims and objectives; formal quality improvement or financial evaluation methods used; consistent results in a single setting; reasonably consistent recommendations with some reference to scientific evidence.

C Low quality or major flaws

Unclear or missing aims and objectives; inconsistent results; poorly defined quality; improvement/financial analysis method; recommendations cannot be made.

Quality Rating for Case Report, Integrative Review, Literature Review, Expert Opinion, Community Standard, Clinician Experience, Consumer Preference (Level V)
A High quality

Expertise is clearly evident, draws definitive conclusions, and provides scientific rationale; thought leader in the field.

B Good quality

Expertise appears to be credible, draws fairly definitive conclusions, and provides logical argument for opinions.

C Low quality or major flaws

Expertise is not discernable or is dubious; conclusions cannot be drawn.

 

Place Order
Grab A 14% Discount on This Paper
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Try it now!

Grab A 14% Discount on This Paper

Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.