This assignment will require you to take the PICO, 5 research articles and place them in a table for analysis. You will critique each article and identify the most important parts of the research, analysis, and findings.
Then you will summarize the articles by grading the research, and identifying gaps in the literature as well as possible interventions (see grading rubric and examples).
This will serve as the foundation for the work you will do in the Project/Practicum courses. As you work with your preceptor and finalize your capstone project, you will continue to build on this material. This assignment will be graded within 3-4 days of due date, with feedback provided once all grading has been completed.
This assignment enables the learners to meet Course SLO #1, 2, 3, 4
Instructions:
Identify your PICO or research question of interest
Gather 5 research articles on your topic: be sure to save them and submit them along with the matrix; please make sure they are PDF documents. Remember you must submit the 5 articles again when you submit the matrix.
Do not use clinical guidelines or Cochran Reviews, abstracts, future research reports or poster presentations. You can search for research only by indicating "research" when you do an advanced search. If you can’t answer a lot of the questions, it is probably not a research article.
We do not recommend that you use more than one qualitative research article or systematic review or meta analysis. These are harder to evaluate because they have so much more information in them. Remember it is not individuals in these studies- it is the articles. Use the reference list in the systematic reviews or meta analyses to find individual studies that may be easier to understand and use.
Review sample matrices and summaries
Use matrix table- one for each article and critique the parts of the article using the rubric
Be sure to identify the evaluation tool used to grade the evidence such as (See below for grading the evidence tools)
Identify where there are issues with the articles and what gaps were not addressed with the research; be prepared this may change the way you look at your topic or may result in a slightly different direction for your area of interest. This is ok- that is what you want to accomplish with this assignment. It will really assist you as you move forward with your project.
New addition for summary effective Fall 2 2023: We want you to insert the verbatim summary that you copied from Elicit.org as part of your summary. DO NOT use it as a primary resource for this assignment. What did you find was missing from the Elicit summary- did you still have to search for additional information to help inform your summary? This is a trial so we will see how it goes and give us feedback if this tool was helpful.
For this assignment you will turn in the matrix tables, summary, references and pdf copies of your 5 articles. Please note: Once your faculty has approved the articles, these are the ones you need to submit with the matrix. If you want to change articles, please contact your faculty by NKU email to make a switch. Discuss with your faculty if you want to use a DNP project as one of your articles. This may be helpful in some circumstances- check with your faculty prior to using.
Key definitions:
Level of evidence (LOE): a hierarchical scale/method used to evaluate the level of evidence of the studies – such as Polit & Beck, p. 11, Johns Hopkins, etc. This is described as Level 1 evidence, Level 2 evidence, etc. and is based on the study design – e.g. – an experimental RCT, quasi-experimental, non-experimental/descriptive, etc.
Evaluation tool – used to measure the "quality" of the evidence: Multiple tools can be used to evaluate the strength and quality of the evidence found in the study. These are chosen based on the study design (RCT, quasi-experimental, etc.). You must provide the name/type of tool used to evaluate (e.g. CASP for RCT, Cincinnati Children’s for Case Control study, etc.) and provide the score you gave it (based on the tool used to grade – e.g. 11/11, 10/11…). Here is a video describing the critical appraisal evaluation with a Joanna Briggs evaluation tool. Links to an external site.
Instrument: What type of instrument or tool was used in the article to Collect their Data? This could be a questionnaire like a depression screening tool, a nurse satisfaction tool, or the like. You should describe the instrument-including how many questions, type of scale/data (a Likert scale, yes/no questions or ?) the instrument’s reliability and validity – Cronbach’s Alpha, or other ways they determined (if any) the R/V of these instruments. See Polit/Beck p. 314 they they discuss reliability and validity of instruments/tools or questionnaire. An example would be Physical and Cognitive Performance Test for Assisted Living Facilities (p. 324 in the box).
Files:
Use this form for your assignment: Article Matrix and Analysis Revised 6.2023.docx
Rubric: DNP 816 Rubric for Matrix and Summary 10.2020 Final v2.docx
Sample 1 Matrix_dnp816. Fall 2020 with permission.docx
Sample 2 DNP 816 Matrix Fall 2020 with permission.docx
Sample 3 DNP 816 Matrix Fall 2022 with permission.DNP816_Week 5 Assigment_Article Matrix and Analysis Fall 2022.BH.docx
Links to critical appraisal tools to evaluate research quality:
Joanna Briggs Institute (joannabriggs.org) Joanna Briggs Institute Links to an external site. Links to an external site.
CASP checklists Links to an external site.
Mixed Method appraisal checklist McGill: Links to an external site.
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Legend tools- very helpful Links to an external site.
Johns Hopkins EBP Models and Tools Links to an external site.
Rubric
DNP 816 Matrix Rubric 10.2020
DNP 816 Matrix Rubric 10.2020
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Source information and quality
7.5 pts
Full Marks
All key elements are present: Author credentials listed, article is less than 5 years old, and publication is peer reviewed/ scholarly, article is based on research and relates to the chosen topic of concern; is a primary source
5 pts
Average Marks
Two key elements are present: Author credentials listed, article is less than 5 years old, ad publication is peer reviewed/ scholarly, article is based on research and relates to the chosen topic of concern but is a secondary source
3.5 pts
Low Marks
One key element is listed: Author credentials listed, article is less than 5 years old, ad publication is peer reviewed/ scholarly, the articles only partially relate to the chosen topic of concern or is a secondary source
2 pts
Poor Marks
Missing key elements: Author credentials listed, article is more than 5 years old, and publication is peer reviewed/ scholarly, the article has little or nothing to do with the topic of concern and is a secondary source. The article is not research
7.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Research Design and Interventions
7.5 pts
Full Marks
All key elements are present: appropriate research design identified, thorough description of intervention, justification for not using a different research design, longitudinal or prospective, or causal intent. Identifies IV and DV if appropriate
5 pts
Average Marks
Elements are covered but not in enough depth: appropriate research design identified, thorough description of intervention, justification for not using a different research design, longitudinal or prospective, or causal intent. Identifies IV and DV if appropriate
3.5 pts
Low Marks
Missing elements in this category- research design or intervention: appropriate research design identified, thorough description of intervention, justification for not using a different research design, longitudinal or prospective, or causal intent. Identifies IV and DV if appropriate
2 pts
Poor Marks
Missing key elements: does not identify the correct research design, no description of the intervention (if present), does not identify IV or DV (if appropriate)
7.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Level of Evidence, Model and Evaluation Tool
7.5 pts
Full Marks
Key elements addressed: What was the strength of the evidence in support of your research topic- what model was used to grade the evidence? What evaluation tool was used to assess the evidence?
5 pts
Average Marks
Key elements are not well described but are present: Strength of evidence, model used to grade the evidence and evaluation tool used.
3.5 pts
Low Marks
Missing elements in this category: Includes some information but it missing content related to grading the evidence, model use or evaluation tool.
2 pts
Poor Marks
Does not include the level of evidence and model used to grade it. Does not use an evaluation tool to assess design
7.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Sample and Data Collection Procedure
7.5 pts
Full Marks
Key elements addressed: was population identified, were sample procedures described? What type sampling plan as used? How were people recruited? Was there a power analysis? Was sample size large enough? All elements thoroughly addressed.
5 pts
Average Marks
Key elements are not well described but are present: was population identified, were sample procedures described? What type sampling plan as used? How were people recruited? Was there a power analysis? Was sample size large enough?
3.5 pts
Low Marks
Missing or superficial information: was population identified, were sample procedures described? What type sampling plan as used? How were people recruited? Was there a power analysis? Was sample size large enough?
2 pts
Poor Marks
Does not include a discussion of the participants, how they were recruited, power analysis information, sample size adequacy. Limited information included.
7.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Instruments- Reliability and Validity
7.5 pts
Full Marks
Key Elements addressed: includes a complete and thorough discussion of the instruments used, types of questions, reliability- (Cronbach alpha) and validity, LOM
5 pts
Average Marks
Key elements are not well described but are present: includes some discussion of the instruments used, types of questions, reliability- (Cronbach alpha) and validity, LOM
3.5 pts
Low Marks
Key elements are missing or are very superficial: includes a complete discussion of the instruments used, types of questions, reliability (Cronbach alpha) and validity, LOM
2 pts
Poor Marks
Does not include information concerning reliability or validity of instruments.
7.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Data Analysis
Statistics, LOM, findings, results
7.5 pts
Full Marks
Key elements addressed thoroughly: Was level of measurement identified? Were inferential stats used? Were tests parametric or nonparametric- why used? Were there significant results? Was there an appropriate amount of statistics info reported? Were all important results discussed?
5 pts
Average Marks
Key elements are not well described but are present: Was level of measurement identified? Were inferential stats used? Were tests parametric or nonparametric- why used? Were there significant results? Was there an appropriate amount of statistics info reported? Were all important results discussed?
3.5 pts
Low Marks
Key elements are missing or very superficial discussion: Was level of measurement identified? Were inferential stats used? Were tests parametric or nonparametric- why used? Were there significant results? Was there an appropriate amount of statistics info reported? Were all important results discussed?
2 pts
Poor Marks
Missing information from discussion of data analysis: does not identify statistics used, no LOM, findings or results
7.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Discussion: Significance of findings, Reliability and Validity of study, Limitations
7.5 pts
Full Marks
Key elements addressed thoroughly: Was interpretation appropriate? Were limitations identified? Addressed study implications for clinical practice, did they make specific recommendations or miss important implications? Did research address clinical significance? Did they address generalizability?
5 pts
Average Marks
Key elements are not well described but are present: interpretation, limitations, implications for clinical practice, clinical significance, generalizability
3.5 pts
Low Marks
Key elements superficial : interpretation, limitations, implications for clinical practice, clinical significance, generalizability
2 pts
Poor Marks
Missing information regarding: interpretation, limitations, implications for clinical practice, clinical significance, generalizability
7.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Analysis, Helpful and Reliable
7.5 pts
Full Marks
Key elements answered thoughtfully: is the information biased or objective, useful and reliable or not? How does the source compare with other reviewed articles? How is this information similar or different from other articles you have read? Was the information helpful? How?
5 pts
Average Marks
Key elements are not well described but are present: is the information biased or objective, useful and reliable or not? How does the source compare with other reviewed articles? How is this information similar or different from other articles you have read? Was the information helpful? How?
3.5 pts
Low Marks
Key elements are present but superficial: is the information biased or objective, useful and reliable or not? How does the source compare with other reviewed articles? How is this information similar or different from other articles you have read? Was the information helpful? How?
2 pts
Poor Marks
Missing key elements: is the information biased or objective, useful and reliable or not? How does the source compare with other reviewed articles? How is this information similar or different from other articles you have read? Was the information helpful? How?
7.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Summary- Overall Synthesis of all 5 Articles
20 pts
Full Marks
Key Elements: Thorough and complete discussion about the quality of the articles (level of evidence), overall findings, what research still needs to be done on your topic, identifies gaps in care, addresses health promotion pertinent for area, analyzes interventions for populations. Did the article change your thinking about your research topic?
14 pts
Average Marks
Discusses each article individually, with some evaluation of quality and needed research. Did the article change your thinking about your research topic? Addresses a gap in care of population, few health promotion or prevention issues, few interventions for population
7.5 pts
Low Marks
Includes most of the articles, spotty evaluation of the articles, no research identified, limited discussion if view changed on the topic. Limited analysis/summary with focus on gaps identified, health prevention/promotion or interventions
0 pts
No Marks
Does not include the summary of all 5 articles, no evaluation of quality of the articles, no needed research identified, limited discussion addressing gaps in care, health promotion/prevention or interventions. Did not address if view on topic has changed
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Writing quality
10 pts
Full Marks
No grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. Succinct
7.5 pts
Average Marks
Almost no grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. Nearly succinct
5 pts
Low Marks
A few grammatical spelling or punctuation errors.
0 pts
No Marks
Many grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. Too brief or not succinct
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome APA Format
10 pts
Full Marks
Source is consistently documented in APA format
7.5 pts
Average Marks
Source is accurately documented but a few minor errors noted
5 pts
Low Marks
Multiple errors in accuracy and APA format.
0 pts
No Marks
Sources are neither accurately documented nor in APA Format
10 pts
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH NURSING TERM PAPERS TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT
