NURS 6052 Walden University Critical Appraisal of Research Evidence Based Project
Realtors rely on detailed property appraisals—conducted using appraisal tools—to assign market values to houses and other properties. These values are then presented to buyers and sellers to set prices and initiate offers.Research appraisal is not that different. The critical appraisal process utilizes formal appraisal tools to assess the results of research to determine value to the context at hand. Evidence-based practitioners often present these findings to make the case for specific courses of action.In this Assignment, you will use an appraisal tool to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.To Prepare:Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and the four systematic reviews (or other filtered high- level evidence) you selected in Module 3.Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3.Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template provided in the Resources.The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of ResearchConduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected by completing the Evaluation Table within the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Choose a total of four peer- reviewed articles that you selected related to your clinical topic of interest in Module 2 and Module 3.Note: You can choose any combination of articles from Modules 2 and 3 for your Critical Appraisal. For example, you may choose two unfiltered research articles from Module 2 and two filtered research articles (systematic reviews) from Module 3 or one article from Module 2 and three articles from Module 3. You can choose any combination of articles from the prior Module Assignments as long as both modules and types of studies are represented.Part 4B: Critical Appraisal of ResearchBased on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.ARTICLES USED FOR PREVIOUS ASSIGNMENT:Augustine, L., Brown, R., & McCollum, W. (2019). A Qualitative Case Study Exploring Hand-Hygiene Standards in an Intensive Care Unit. International Journalof Applied Management and Technology, 18(1), 126-141. https://doi.org/10.5590/IJAMT.2019.18.1.09 Chen, Y. C., Sheng, W. H., Wang, J. T., Chang, S. C., Lin, H. C., Tien, K. L., ... & Tsai, K. S. (2011). Effectiveness and Limitations of Hand Hygiene Promotion on Decreasing Healthcare–Associated Infections. PLoS One, 6(11), e27163. Erasmus, V., Daha, T. J., Brug, H., Hendrik Richardus, J., Behrendt, M. D., Vos, M. C., & van Beeck, E. F. (2010). Systematic review of studies on compliance with hand hygiene guidelines in hospital care. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 31(3), 283. Levchenko, A. I., Boscart, V. M., & Fernie, G. R. (2011). The feasibility of an automated monitoring system to improve nurses’ hand hygiene. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 80(8), 596-603. Randle, J., Firth, J., & Vaughan, N. (2013). An observational study of hand hygiene compliance in paediatric wards. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 22(17/18), 2586-2592.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04103.xWeek07_Assignment_RubricPart 4A: Critical Appraisal of ResearchConduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected and analyzed by completing the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Be sure to include:· An Evaluation Table--Excellent 45 (45%) - 50 (50%)The critical appraisal accurately and clearly provides a detailed evaluation table. The responses provide a detailed, specific, and accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.Good 40 (40%) - 44 (44%)The critical appraisal accurately provides an evaluation table. The responses provide an accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected with some specificity.Fair 35 (35%) - 39 (39%)The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate or vague. The responses provide an inaccurate or vague evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.Poor 0 (0%) - 34 (34%)The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate and vague or is missing.Part 4B: Evidence-Based Best PracticesBased on your appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.--Excellent 32 (32%) - 35 (35%)The responses accurately and clearly suggest a detailed best practice that is fully aligned to the research reviewed. The responses accurately and clearly explain in detail the best practice, with sufficient justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. The response fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the responses provided. Accurate, complete, and full APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.Good 28 (28%) - 31 (31%)The responses accurately suggest a best practice that is adequately aligned to the research reviewed. The responses accurately explain the best practice, with adequately justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed on the best practice explained. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the responses provided. Accurate and complete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.Fair 25 (25%) - 27 (27%)The responses inaccurately or vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed. The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate or vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide a vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided. Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.Poor 0 (0%) - 24 (24%)The responses inaccurately and vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed or are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate and vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field, or are missing. A vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained is provided or is missing. The response fails to integrate any resources to support the responses provided. Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed or is missing.Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization:Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.--Excellent 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.Good 4 (4%) - 4 (4%)Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive.Fair 3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%)Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.Poor 0 (0%) - 3 (3%)Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.--Excellent 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.Good 4 (4%) - 4 (4%)Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.Fair 3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%)Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.Poor 0 (0%) - 3 (3%)Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.Written Expression and Formatting—The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.--Excellent 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)Uses correct APA format with no errors.Good 4 (4%) - 4 (4%)Contains a few (one or two) APA format errors.Fair 3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%)Contains several (three or four) APA format errors.Poor 0 (0%) - 3 (3%)Contains many (five or more) APA format errors.
