[ad_1]
Literature Evaluation Table
Student Name: Mickaela Eda
Change Topic (2-3 sentences): The main topic is main topic is management and prevention of obesity in children and in adolescents . The change topic is; increasing strength exercise into gym classes , and having children engage in monthly motivational lessons in school to increase physical activity at home and after school
| Criteria | Article 1 | Article 2 | Article 3 | Article 4 |
|
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and
Permalink or Working Link to Access Article
|
|
|||
|
Article Title and Year Published
|
||||
|
Research Questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative)
|
||||
| Purposes/Aim of Study | ||||
|
Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)
|
||||
|
Setting/Sample
|
||||
|
Methods: Intervention/Instruments
|
||||
|
Analysis
|
||||
|
Key Findings
|
||||
|
Recommendations
|
||||
|
Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP/Capstone Project
|
| Criteria | Article 5 | Article 6 | Article 7 | Article 8 |
|
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and
Permalink or Working Link to Access Article
|
|
|||
|
Article Title and Year Published
|
||||
|
Research Questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative)
|
||||
| Purposes/Aim of Study | ||||
|
Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)
|
||||
|
Setting/Sample
|
||||
|
Methods: Intervention/Instruments
|
||||
|
Analysis
|
||||
|
Key Findings
|
||||
|
Recommendations
|
||||
|
Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP/Capstone
|
In nursing practice, accurate identification and application of research is essential to achieving successful outcomes. The ability to articulate research data and summarize relevant content supports the student’s ability to further develop and synthesize the assignments that constitute the components of the capstone project.
The assignment will be used to develop a written implementation plan.
For this assignment, provide a synopsis of the review of the research literature. Using the “Literature Evaluation Table,” determine the level and strength of the evidence for each of the eight research articles you have selected. The articles should be current (within the last 5 years) and closely relate to the PICOT question developed earlier in this course. The articles may include quantitative research, descriptive analyses, longitudinal studies, or meta-analysis articles. A systematic review may be used to provide background information for the purpose or problem identified in the proposed capstone project.
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and in-text citations and references should be presented using APA documentation guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.
I have attached rubric
5. Target
5 points
Key findings section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. Accpetable
4.45 points
Key findings section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. Approaching
3.95 points
Key findings section is present.
2. Insufficient
3.75 points
Key findings section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Key findings section is not included.
Recommendations
5 points
Criteria Description
Recommendations
5. Target
5 points
Recommendations section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. Accpetable
4.45 points
Recommendations section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. Approaching
3.95 points
Recommendations section is present.
2. Insufficient
3.75 points
Recommendations section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Recommendations section is not included.
Article Title and Year Published
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Article Title and Year Published
5. Target
2.5 points
Article title and year published section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. Accpetable
2.23 points
Article title and year published section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. Approaching
1.98 points
Article title and year published section is present.
2. Insufficient
1.88 points
Article title and year published section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Article title and year published section is not included.
Mechanics of Writing
5 points
Criteria Description
Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.
5. Target
5 points
No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.
4. Accpetable
4.45 points
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.
3. Approaching
3.95 points
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.
2. Insufficient
3.75 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.
Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)
5. Target
2.5 points
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. Accpetable
2.23 points
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. Approaching
1.98 points
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present.
2. Insufficient
1.88 points
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is not included.
Format/Documentation
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., appropriate to assignment and discipline.
5. Target
2.5 points
No errors in formatting or documentation are present.
4. Accpetable
2.23 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.
3. Approaching
1.98 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors.
2. Insufficient
1.88 points
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.
Methods: Intervention or Instruments
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Methods: Intervention or Instruments
5. Target
2.5 points
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. Accpetable
2.23 points
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. Approaching
1.98 points
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is present.
2. Insufficient
1.88 points
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is not included.
Analysis
5 points
Criteria Description
Analysis
5. Target
5 points
Analysis section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. Accpetable
4.45 points
Analysis section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. Approaching
3.95 points
Analysis section is present.
2. Insufficient
3.75 points
Analysis section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Analysis section is not included.
Presentation
5 points
Criteria Description
Presentation
5. Target
5 points
The work is well presented and includes all required elements. The overall appearance is neat and professional.
4. Accpetable
4.45 points
The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor flaws or missing elements.
3. Approaching
3.95 points
The overall appearance is general, and major elements are missing.
2. Insufficient
3.75 points
The work is not neat and includes minor flaws or omissions of required elements.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The piece is not neat or organized, and it does not include all required elements.
Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of Study
5 points
Criteria Description
Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of Study
5. Target
5 points
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. Accpetable
4.45 points
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. Approaching
3.95 points
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present.
2. Insufficient
3.75 points
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is not included.
Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or Capstone
5 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or Capstone
5. Target
5 points
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. Accpetable
4.45 points
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. Approaching
3.95 points
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is provided.
2. Insufficient
3.75 points
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is not included.
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article
5. Target
2.5 points
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. Accpetable
2.23 points
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. Approaching
1.98 points
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present.
2. Insufficient
1.88 points
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is not included.
Setting or Sample
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Setting or Sample
5. Target
2.5 points
Setting or sample section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. Accpetable
2.23 points
Setting or sample section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. Approaching
1.98 points
Setting or sample section is present.
2. Insufficient
1.88 points
Setting or sample section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Setting or sample section is not included.
Total50 points
[ad_2]
Testimonials
