My Topic : Factors influencing chemotherapy knowledge in women with cancer
My Topic : Factors influencing chemotherapy knowledge in women with cancer
Week 10: Summative Assignment: Critique of Research Article
A research critique demonstrates your ability to critically read an investigative study. For this assignment, choose a research article related to nursing or medicine to critique.
Articles used for one assignment can’t be used for the other assignments (students should find new research articles for each assignment).
The selected articles should be original research articles. Review articles, meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, and systemic review should not be used.
Mixed-methods studies should not be used.
Your critique should include the following:
Research Problem/Purpose
State the problem clearly as it is presented in the report.
Have the investigators placed the study problem within the context of existing knowledge?
Will the study solve a problem relevant to nursing?
State the purpose of the research.
Review of the Literature
Identify the concepts explored in the literature review.
Were the references current? If not, what do you think the reasons are?
Theoretical Framework
Are the theoretical concepts defined and related to the research?
Does the research draw solely on nursing theory or does it draw on theory from other disciplines?
Is a theoretical framework stated in this research piece?
If not, suggest one that might be suitable for the study.
Variables/Hypotheses/Questions/Assumptions
What are the independent and dependent variables in this study?
Are the operational definitions of the variables given? If so, are they concrete and measurable?
Is the research question or the hypothesis stated? What is it?
Methodology
What type of design (quantitative, qualitative, and type) was used in this study?
Was inductive or deductive reasoning used in this study?
State the sample size and study population, sampling method, and study setting.
Did the investigator choose a probability or non-probability sample?
State the type of reliability and the validity of the measurement tools.
Were ethical considerations addressed?
Data Analysis
What data analysis tool was used?
How were the results presented in the study?
Identify at least one (1) finding.
Summary/Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations
What are the strengths and limitations of the study?
In terms of the findings, can the researcher generalize to other populations? Explain.
Evaluate the findings and conclusions as to their significance for nursing.
The body of your paper should be 46 double-spaced pages plus a cover page and a reference page. The critique must be attached to the article and follow APA guidelines.
Need APA Help?
Points 280
Rubric Detail
A rubric lists grading criteria that instructors use to evaluate student work. Your instructor linked a rubric to this item and made it available to you. Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name:NURS350-Research Critique
Description:This rubric is used to evaluate the Research Critique Assignment in NURS350.
Grid View
List View
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Mostly Meets Expectations
Below Expectations
Does Not Meet Expectations
Research Problem/Purpose
Points:
Points Range:
25.2 (9.00%) – 28 (10.00%)
Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are clearly identified.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
21.28 (7.60%) – 24.92 (8.90%)
Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are somewhat identified.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
16.8 (6.00%) – 21 (7.50%)
Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are mostly absent or misidentified.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0.00%) – 16.52 (5.90%)
Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are absent.
Feedback:
Review of the Literature
Points:
Points Range:
37.8 (13.50%) – 42 (15.00%)
Concepts explored in the literature review are clearly identified. Critique of the references is included and well developed.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
31.92 (11.40%) – 37.38 (13.35%)
Concepts explored in the literature review are somewhat identified. Critique of the references is included, but may not be fully developed.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
25.2 (9.00%) – 31.5 (11.25%)
Concepts explored in the literature review are misidentified. Critique of the references is severely lacking.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0.00%) – 24.78 (8.85%)
Concepts explored in the literature review are absent. Critique of the references is absent.
Feedback:
Theoretical Framework
Points:
Points Range:
25.2 (9.00%) – 28 (10.00%)
A theoretical concept/framework is identified and well analyzed for appropriateness. If the article lacks a concept/framework, a suitable one is suggested.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
21.28 (7.60%) – 24.92 (8.90%)
A theoretical concept/framework is somewhat identified and analyzed for appropriateness.
If the article lacks a concept/framework, a potential concept/framework is suggested, but it is somewhat inappropriate.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
16.8 (6.00%) – 21 (7.50%)
A theoretical concept/framework is somewhat identified and analyzed for appropriateness.
If the article lacks a concept/framework, a potential concept/framework is suggested, is not identified or is grossly inappropriate.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0.00%) – 16.52 (5.90%)
A theoretical concept/framework is misidentified or not analyzed for appropriateness.
Feedback:
Variables, Hypotheses, Questions, and Assumptions
Points:
Points Range:
12.6 (4.50%) – 14 (5.00%)
IV and DV are identified and defined. Discussion on measurability is included. Research question and hypothesis are identified.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
10.64 (3.80%) – 12.46 (4.45%)
IV and DV are somewhat identified and or partially defined. Discussion on measurability is somewhat included. Research question and hypothesis are partially identified.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
8.4 (3.00%) – 10.5 (3.75%)
IV and DV identification and definition are absent or severely lacking. Discussion on measurability is absent or inaccurate. Research question and hypothesis are not identified or grossly misidentified.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0.00%) – 8.26 (2.95%)
IV and DV identification and definition are absent. Discussion on measurability is absent. Research question and hypothesis are not identified.
Feedback:
Methodology
Points:
Points Range:
50.4 (18.00%) – 56 (20.00%)
Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling method, and type of reasoning are properly identified. Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are discussed.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
42.56 (15.20%) – 49.84 (17.80%)
Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling method, and type of reasoning are somewhat identified. Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are discussed, but some information is inaccurate.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
33.6 (12.00%) – 42 (15.00%)
Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling method, and type of reasoning are absent or misidentified. Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are either absent or grossly inaccurate.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0.00%) – 33.04 (11.80%)
Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling method, and type of reasoning are absent. Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are absent.
Feedback:
Data Analysis
Points:
Points Range:
37.8 (13.50%) – 42 (15.00%)
Data analysis tool is identified. An explanation on how the results are presented in the study is included and accurate. At least one finding is appropriately identified.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
31.92 (11.40%) – 37.38 (13.35%)
Data analysis tool is somewhat identified. An incomplete explanation on how the results are presented in the study is included. At least one finding is identified.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
25.2 (9.00%) – 31.5 (11.25%)
Data analysis tool is absent or misidentified. An explanation on how the results are presented in the study is absent or grossly unclear. Findings are not included or are grossly inaccurate.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0.00%) – 24.78 (8.85%)
Data analysis tool is absent. An explanation on how the results are presented in the study is absent. Findings are not included.
Feedback:
Summary, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations
Points:
Points Range:
50.4 (18.00%) – 56 (20.00%)
Strengths and limitations of the study are identified. A discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is included. An evaluation of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing is included and appropriate.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
42.56 (15.20%) – 49.84 (17.80%)
Strengths and limitations of the study are somewhat identified. A discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is included but may not be fully developed. An evaluation of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing may not be fully developed.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
33.6 (12.00%) – 42 (15.00%)
Strengths and limitations of study are absent or lacking. A discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is absent or lacking. An evaluation of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing is absent or inappropriate.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0.00%) – 33.04 (11.80%)
Strengths and limitations of study are absent. A discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is absent. An evaluation of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing is absent.
Feedback:
Mechanics and APA Format
Points:
Points Range:
12.6 (4.50%) – 14 (5.00%)
Written in a clear, concise, formal, and organized manner. Responses are mostly error free. Information from sources is appropriately paraphrased and accurately cited.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
10.64 (3.80%) – 12.46 (4.45%)
Writing is generally clear and organized but is not concise or formal in language. Multiple errors exist in spelling and grammar with minor interference with readability or comprehension. Most information from sources is correctly paraphrased and cited.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
8.4 (3.00%) – 10.5 (3.75%)
Writing is generally unclear and unorganized. Some errors in spelling and grammar detract from readability and comprehension. Sources are missing or improperly cited.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0.00%) – 8.26 (2.95%)
Writing is unclear and unorganized. Errors in spelling and grammar detract from readability and comprehension. Sources are missing.
Feedback:
Show Descriptions
Show Feedback
Research Problem/Purpose–
Levels of Achievement:
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
25.2 (9.00%) – 28 (10.00%)
Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are clearly identified.
Mostly Meets Expectations
21.28 (7.60%) – 24.92 (8.90%)
Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are somewhat identified.
Below Expectations
16.8 (6.00%) – 21 (7.50%)
Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are mostly absent or misidentified.
Does Not Meet Expectations
0 (0.00%) – 16.52 (5.90%)
Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are absent.
Feedback:
Review of the Literature–
Levels of Achievement:
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
37.8 (13.50%) – 42 (15.00%)
Concepts explored in the literature review are clearly identified. Critique of the references is included and well developed.
Mostly Meets Expectations
31.92 (11.40%) – 37.38 (13.35%)
Concepts explored in the literature review are somewhat identified. Critique of the references is included, but may not be fully developed.
Below Expectations
25.2 (9.00%) – 31.5 (11.25%)
Concepts explored in the literature review are misidentified. Critique of the references is severely lacking.
Does Not Meet Expectations
0 (0.00%) – 24.78 (8.85%)
Concepts explored in the literature review are absent. Critique of the references is absent.
Feedback:
Theoretical Framework–
Levels of Achievement:
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
25.2 (9.00%) – 28 (10.00%)
A theoretical concept/framework is identified and well analyzed for appropriateness. If the article lacks a concept/framework, a suitable one is suggested.
Mostly Meets Expectations
21.28 (7.60%) – 24.92 (8.90%)
A theoretical concept/framework is somewhat identified and analyzed for appropriateness.
If the article lacks a concept/framework, a potential concept/framework is suggested, but it is somewhat inappropriate.
Below Expectations
16.8 (6.00%) – 21 (7.50%)
A theoretical concept/framework is somewhat identified and analyzed for appropriateness.
If the article lacks a concept/framework, a potential concept/framework is suggested, is not identified or is grossly inappropriate.
Does Not Meet Expectations
0 (0.00%) – 16.52 (5.90%)
A theoretical concept/framework is misidentified or not analyzed for appropriateness.
Feedback:
Variables, Hypotheses, Questions, and Assumptions–
Levels of Achievement:
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
12.6 (4.50%) – 14 (5.00%)
IV and DV are identified and defined. Discussion on measurability is included. Research question and hypothesis are identified.
Mostly Meets Expectations
10.64 (3.80%) – 12.46 (4.45%)
IV and DV are somewhat identified and or partially defined. Discussion on measurability is somewhat included. Research question and hypothesis are partially identified.
Below Expectations
8.4 (3.00%) – 10.5 (3.75%)
IV and DV identification and definition are absent or severely lacking. Discussion on measurability is absent or inaccurate. Research question and hypothesis are not identified or grossly misidentified.
Does Not Meet Expectations
0 (0.00%) – 8.26 (2.95%)
IV and DV identification and definition are absent. Discussion on measurability is absent. Research question and hypothesis are not identified.
Feedback:
Methodology–
Levels of Achievement:
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
50.4 (18.00%) – 56 (20.00%)
Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling method, and type of reasoning are properly identified. Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are discussed.
Mostly Meets Expectations
42.56 (15.20%) – 49.84 (17.80%)
Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling method, and type of reasoning are somewhat identified. Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are discussed, but some information is inaccurate.
Below Expectations
33.6 (12.00%) – 42 (15.00%)
Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling method, and type of reasoning are absent or misidentified. Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are either absent or grossly inaccurate.
Does Not Meet Expectations
0 (0.00%) – 33.04 (11.80%)
Type of design, sample size, study population, sampling method, and type of reasoning are absent. Reliability and validity of measurement tools, ethical considerations, and probability vs. non-probability sampling are absent.
Feedback:
Data Analysis–
Levels of Achievement:
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
37.8 (13.50%) – 42 (15.00%)
Data analysis tool is identified. An explanation on how the results are presented in the study is included and accurate. At least one finding is appropriately identified.
Mostly Meets Expectations
31.92 (11.40%) – 37.38 (13.35%)
Data analysis tool is somewhat identified. An incomplete explanation on how the results are presented in the study is included. At least one finding is identified.
Below Expectations
25.2 (9.00%) – 31.5 (11.25%)
Data analysis tool is absent or misidentified. An explanation on how the results are presented in the study is absent or grossly unclear. Findings are not included or are grossly inaccurate.
Does Not Meet Expectations
0 (0.00%) – 24.78 (8.85%)
Data analysis tool is absent. An explanation on how the results are presented in the study is absent. Findings are not included.
Feedback:
Summary, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations–
Levels of Achievement:
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
50.4 (18.00%) – 56 (20.00%)
Strengths and limitations of the study are identified. A discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is included. An evaluation of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing is included and appropriate.
Mostly Meets Expectations
42.56 (15.20%) – 49.84 (17.80%)
Strengths and limitations of the study are somewhat identified. A discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is included but may not be fully developed. An evaluation of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing may not be fully developed.
Below Expectations
33.6 (12.00%) – 42 (15.00%)
Strengths and limitations of study are absent or lacking. A discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is absent or lacking. An evaluation of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing is absent or inappropriate.
Does Not Meet Expectations
0 (0.00%) – 33.04 (11.80%)
Strengths and limitations of study are absent. A discussion on whether or not the study can be generalized is absent. An evaluation of the findings, conclusions, and significance to nursing is absent.
Feedback:
Mechanics and APA Format–
Levels of Achievement:
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
12.6 (4.50%) – 14 (5.00%)
Written in a clear, concise, formal, and organized manner. Responses are mostly error free. Information from sources is appropriately paraphrased and accurately cited.
Mostly Meets Expectations
10.64 (3.80%) – 12.46 (4.45%)
Writing is generally clear and organized but is not concise or formal in language. Multiple errors exist in spelling and grammar with minor interference with readability or comprehension. Most information from sources is correctly paraphrased and cited.
Below Expectations
8.4 (3.00%) – 10.5 (3.75%)
Writing is generally unclear and unorganized. Some errors in spelling and grammar detract from readability and comprehension. Sources are missing or improperly cited.
Does Not Meet Expectations
0 (0.00%) – 8.26 (2.95%)
Writing is unclear and unorganized. Errors in spelling and grammar detract from readability and comprehension. Sources are missing.
Feedback:
Name:NURS350-Research Critique
Description:This rubric is used to evaluate the Research Critique Assignment in NURS350.
