(240)-343-2585 info@essaymerit.com

NRS 433 Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations NRS 433 Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations NRS 433 Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Assessment Description Write a critical appraisal that demonstrates comprehension of two quantitative research studies. Use the “Research Critique Guidelines – Part II” document to organize your essay. Successful completion of this assignment requires that you provide a rationale, include examples, and reference content from the study in your responses. Use the practice problem and two quantitative, peer-reviewed research articles you identified in the Topic 1 assignment to complete this assignment. In a 1,000–1,250 word essay, summarize two quantitative studies, explain the ways in which the findings might be used in nursing practice, and address ethical considerations associated with the conduct of the study. You are required to cite a minimum of three peer-reviewed sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years, appropriate for the assignment criteria, and relevant to nursing practice. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required. 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 required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance. Attachments NRS-433V-RS3-ResearchCritiqueGuideline Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations – Rubric Criteria Description Quantitative Studies 5. : Excellent 9.5 points Two articles are presented. Both articles are based on quantitative research. 4. 4: Good 8.93 points N/A 3. 3: Satisfactory 7.89 points N/A 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 7.13 points Two articles are presented. Of the articles presented, only one article is based on quantitative research. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Only one article is presented. Neither of the articles presented use quantitative research. Criteria Description Background of Study 5. : Excellent 19 points Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is thorough with substantial relevant details and extensive explanation. 4. 4: Good 17.86 points Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is complete and includes relevant details and explanation. 3. 3: Satisfactory 15.77 points Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is partially complete and includes some relevant details and explanation. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 14.25 points Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is included but lacks relevant details and explanation. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is incomplete. Criteria Description Article Support of Nursing Practice 5. : Excellent 28.5 points A clear discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate strong support in answering the proposed PICOT question. The interventions and comparison groups in the articles strongly compare to those identified in the PICOT question. 4. 4: Good 26.79 points A discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate support in answering the proposed PICOT question. The interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in the PICOT question. Minor detail or rational is needed for clarity or support. 3. 3: Satisfactory 23.65 points A general discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate general support in answering the proposed PICOT question. It is unclear how the interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in the PICOT question. Some rational or information is needed. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 21.38 points A summary of how articles support the PICOT question is presented. It is unclear how the articles can be used to answer the proposed PICOT question. Significant information and detail is required. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is incomplete. Criteria Description Method of Study 5. : Excellent 28.5 points A thorough discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is described in detail. A benefit and a limitation of each method are presented. The discussion demonstrates a solid understanding of research methods. 4. 4: Good 26.79 points A discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is generally described. A benefit and a limitation of each method are presented. There minor are inaccuracies. Some detail is required for accuracy or clarity. NRS 433 Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NRS 433 Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations 3. 3: Satisfactory 23.65 points A general discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is summarized. A benefit and a limitation of each method are summarized. There some inaccuracies or partial omissions. More information is needed. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 21.38 points A partial summary of the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is incomplete. A benefit and a limitation of each method are omitted or incomplete. There are significant inaccuracies. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Discussion on the method of study for each article is omitted. The comparison of study methods is omitted or incomplete. Criteria Description Results of Study 5. : Excellent 28.5 points Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is thorough with substantial relevant details and extensive explanation. 4. 4: Good 26.79 points Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is complete and includes relevant details and explanation. 3. 3: Satisfactory 23.65 points Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is generally presented. Overall, the discussion includes some relevant details and explanation. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 21.38 points A summary of the study results includes findings and implications for nursing practice but lacks relevant details and explanation. There are some omissions or inaccuracies. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is incomplete. Criteria Description Anticipated Outcomes and Outcomes Comparison 5. : Excellent 28.5 points Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are thoroughly discussed. A detailed comparison of research article outcomes to the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT is presented. An explanation of how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare is presented in detail. 4. 4: Good 26.79 points Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are discussed. A comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes of the PICOT is presented. An explanation of how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare is presented. Some detail is needed for clarity. 3. 3: Satisfactory 23.65 points Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are summarized. Comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes is generally presented. More information is needed to fully establish how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 21.38 points Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are partially summarized. Comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes contains omissions of key information. It is unclear how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are omitted or are unrealistic. Comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes is incomplete. Criteria Description Thesis Development and Purpose 5. : Excellent 9.5 points Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. 4. 4: Good 8.93 points Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. 3. 3: Satisfactory 7.89 points Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 7.13 points Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Criteria Description Argument Logic and Construction 5. : Excellent 9.5 points Argument is clear and convincing and presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. 4. 4: Good 8.93 points Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. 3. 3: Satisfactory 7.89 points Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 7.13 points Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Criteria Description Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5. : Excellent 9.5 points Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. 4. 4: Good 8.93 points Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. 3. 3: Satisfactory 7.89 points Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 7.13 points Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Criteria Description Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5. : Excellent 9.5 points All format elements are correct. 4. 4: Good 8.93 points Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style. 3. 3: Satisfactory 7.89 points Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 7.13 points Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Criteria Description Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5. : Excellent 9.5 points Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. 4. 4: Good 8.93 points Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. 3. 3: Satisfactory 7.89 points Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 7.13 points Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Sources are not documented. Total 190 points Order Now