Summative Assignment: Critique of Research Article

Summative Assignment: Critique of Research Article

1. 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 4–6 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?

Visit the Student Resources tab or the WCU Library tab at the top of this page.

Points 280

2. By submitting this paper, you agree: (1) that you are submitting your paper to be used and stored as part of the SafeAssign™ services in accordance with the Blackboard Privacy Policy; (2) that your institution may use your paper in accordance with your institution’s policies; and (3) that your use of SafeAssign will be without recourse against Blackboard Inc. and its affiliates.

3. Institution Release Statement

4. I certify the attached paper is my original work and that I acknowledge the institution’s Academic Honor Code and plagiarism statement located here.

Rubric

Meets or Exceeds Expectations

Mostly Meets Expectations

Below Expectations

Does Not Meet Expectations

Research Problem/Purpose

Points Range:25.2 (9.00%) – 28 (10.00%)

Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are clearly identified.

Points Range:21.28 (7.60%) – 24.92 (8.90%)

Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are somewhat identified.

Points Range:16.8 (6.00%) – 21 (7.50%)

Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are mostly absent or misidentified.

Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 16.52 (5.90%)

Research problem, purpose of research, and relevance to nursing are absent.

Review of the Literature

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.

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.

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.

Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 24.78 (8.85%)

Concepts explored in the literature review are absent. Critique of the references is absent.

Theoretical Framework

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.

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.

Points Range:16.8 (6.00%) – 21 (7.50%)

Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 16.52 (5.90%)

A theoretical concept/framework is misidentified or not analyzed for appropriateness.

Variables, Hypotheses, Questions, and Assumptions

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.

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.

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.

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.

Methodology

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.

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.

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.

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.

Data Analysis

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.

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.

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.

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.

Summary, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mechanics and APA Format

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.

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.

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.

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.