Description
Please use the grading rubric to create an outline of your assignment. Each section of the rubric should be a section of your final paper and could become the headings. Your assignment will be graded based on each element of the rubric. Compare each section of your paper with the rubric to ensure all elements are covered. Then, include an introduction and conclusion to tie the paper together. If you have any questions regarding the assignment please contact your instructor.
Read and Critique the following article:
- Harris, M. F., Chan, B. C., Laws, R. A., Williams, A. M., Davies, G. P., Jayasinghe, U. W., … Milat, A. (2013). The impact of a brief lifestyle intervention delivered by generalist community nurses (CN SNAP trial). BMC Public Health, 13(1). doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-375
In a 5 page paper (excluding title page and references), evaluate the study according to research design methods, procedures and study results, for example, see Evaluating a quantitative study (Houser, 2018, p. 345 & p. 377), Include a discussion on how the study contributes to evidence-based practice (EBP).
PLEASE REFERENCE THIS BOOK FOR THE ASSIGNMENT ((((VERY IMPORTANT))))
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CxL4Q4rhX8iOz6YqR_KBQyfguaG8AemzPlease remember to follow APA 6th edition formatting for the title page, body of the paper, and reference page. Use the rubric below to help you complete your assignment.
Rubric or Grading Criteria:
Competency | 28 points | 21 points | 14 points | 0 points | Total |
Evaluates research design | Evaluates research design of study using all of the components of the evaluation checklists in Houser 2018, p. 345). | Evaluates research design of study using most (75%)components of the evaluation checklists in Houser (2018). | Evaluates research design of study using some (50%)components of the evaluation checklists in Houser (2018). | No paper submitted or content missing less than 25% of the components evaluated | /28 |
Evaluates methods/procedures and results | Evaluates methods/procedure, and results of the study using all of the components of the evaluation checklist in Houser 2018, p.377). | Evaluates methods/procedure and results of the study using most (75%) components of the evaluation checklists in Houser (2018). | Evaluates methods/procedures and results of the study using some (50%) components of the evaluation checklists in Houser (2018). | No paper submitted or content missing less than 25% of the components evaluated | /28 |
Clinical practice implications | Discusses how the study contributes to EBP and clinical practice | Discusses EBP in general but not how the study contributes to EBP. | Discusses research and evidence but not clinical implications in practice | No paper submitted or content missing | /28 |
Competency | 7 points | 5 points | 2.5 points | 0 points | |
APA format | Demonstrates competent use of mechanics and APA | Minimal APA errors Two unique errors i.e. abbreviations and in text citation | Many APA errors More than two APA errors | Complete lack of understanding APA format | /7 |
Competency | 3 points | 2 points | 1 points | 0 points | |
Organization | Organization excellent, ideas clear and arranged logically, transitions smooth, no flaws in logic. | Organization good; ideas usually clear and arranged in acceptable sequence; transitions usually smooth, good support | Organization minimally effective; problems in approach, sequence, support and transitions | Organization does not meet requirements | /3 |
Grammar | Grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and usage correct and idiomatic, consistent with Standard American English | Grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and usage good mostly consistent with Standard American English; errors do not interfere with meaning or understanding | Grammar, punctuation, mechanics and usage distracting and often interfere with meaning or understanding | Grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and usage interfere with understanding | /3 |
References | References are relevant, authoritative and contemporary | Adequate references | Minimal use of appropriate references | Poor use and/or selection of references not relevant | /3 |
Total Possible = | /100 |
Explanation & Answer
Attached.
Article Critique – Outline
I. Introduction
II. Research design
A. Quasi-experimental research design
B. Identification of what to evaluate
C. Reasons for the choice of quasi-experimental research design
D. Description of instruments and measurement procedures
III. Methods and results
A. Highlighting of the procedure of how the study goes
B. Mentioning of variables
C. Use of tables in the article
D. Consistent nature of results with summary in the tables
IV. Clinical practice implications
V. Conclusion
Running head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE
1
Article Critique
Name
Institution
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
2
Article Critique
Introduction
Chronic diseases have and continue to be a problem worldwide. In Australia, for
instance, chronic diseases comprise the leading causes of death. The major chronic conditions
that cause death and disability in Australia are diabetes and heart diseases. Lifestyle
behaviors of individuals comprise the primary risk factors for the condition, thus
necessitating the need to address the lifestyle risk factors among the population. This paper
will critique article by Harris et al. (2013) "the impact of a brief lifestyle intervention
delivered by generalist community nurses."
Research Design
In their study, Harris et al. (2013) sought to address the gap in research between
community nurses and their effectiveness in lifestyle interventions. The researchers used
quasi-experimental as their research design by randomly allocating services to the early
intervention group or late intervention group, then comparing them (Harris et al., 2013). The
authors of the article met the requirement of making clear the study early and identifying the
specific design to use. In the background section, the authors made clear that they are going
to evaluate the impact of a lifestyle intervention that the community health nurses will deliver
to the residents of the area. The clarity of the quantitative nature of the article means the
reader quickly understands what the authors are going to tackle in their research. According
to Houser (2018), ideal research should be able to make clear the nature of the study and
identify the specific design used in the study.
The authors mention the reason why the picked quasi-experimental research design in
their study and linked it to their research question. The identified reason is the lack of
feasibility in randomizing the intervention according to individual clients within the services,
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
3
thus necessitating the use of the quasi-experimental design. Randomization would have also
resulted in the overall response introducing bias, which would affect the generalizability of
the findings since more clients could choose to participate (Harris et al., 2013). It, therefore,
shows the commitment of the researchers to ensure that the reader understands the reason to
use the quasi-experimental design, thus place more credibility on the article. Regarding
intervention strategies, the authors provided a procedure to which their clients received the
intervention, which began with an assessment of clients' lifestyle risk factors followed by
educational intervention and then late intervention. The intervention process included a
random selection of clients to receive the necessary interventions.
Objective description of instruments and measurement procedures is essential in any
quantitative study. The researchers ensured that they mentioned the instruments they used as
depicted by their tabulation of study outcomes and tools used to measure the outcomes. Other
researches have validated the measurement tools used by the researchers, thus meeting the
checklist highlighted by Houser (2018) that the instruments are described and supported by
statistics to show their reliability and validity (Houser, 2018). In their study, Harris et al.
(2013) identified the source of bias in their study as that of using client self-reports in their
data collection, which raises bias, particularly for weight. However, the authors failed to
show how they controlled the bias in the study. Another bias that could have arisen in the
study is through randomization. The authors managed to control the bias by adopting a quasiexperimental design as a means of controlling the bias that could have arose thus meeting the
requirements laid down by Houser (2018) regarding the evaluation of qualitative studies that
necessitate the researchers to control bias in their studies. The authors have provided
sufficient information in the article to warrant the generalization of the findings to other
groups.
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
4
Methods and Results
In the method section, the authors of the article have highlighted an in-depth
procedure of how their study went. They have mentioned the random allocation of two
services to early intervention and two to late inter...