DNP-820 Topic 6: Synthesizing Research Assignment
DNP-820 Topic 6: Synthesizing Research Assignment
DNP-820 Topic 6: Synthesizing Research Assignment
Topic 6: Synthesizing Research
Max Points:
240
Objectives:
Evaluate the main components of evidence-based practice.
Synthesis literature for a proposed practice intervention.
Assessments
Topic 6 DQ 1
Points
5
Status
Upcoming
Assessment Description
What effect does a meta-synthesis or meta-analysis have on research translation? Describe a clinical practice in place that is supported by this level of evidence. Provide relevant literature to support your response.
Topic 6 DQ 2
Points
5
Status
Upcoming
Assessment Description
The three main components of evidence-based practice are clinical expertise, best evidence, and patient preference. However, patient preference and clinical expertise are often at odds with each other. Provide an example of an instance in which you would need to mediate this issue and what interprofessional collaboration might be needed. Explain how you would handle the situation. Provide relevant literature to support your response.
Literature Synthesis for Proposed Intervention
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
210
Rubric
View Rubric
Status
Upcoming
Assessment Traits
Requires Lopeswrite
Assessment Description
The purpose of this assignment is for learners to synthesize the literature from the “Literature Evaluation Table – DPI Intervention” into a written paper.
The literature synthesis from this assignment will be used as support for your DPI Project. Be prepared to review and incorporate instructor feedback from this assignment.
General Requirements
Refer to the “Literature Evaluation Table – DPI Intervention” completed in Topic 4 to complete this assignment.
Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is 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 required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
Learners will submit this assignment using the assignment dropbox in the digital classroom. In addition, learners must upload this deliverable to the Learner Dissertation Page (LDP) in the DNP PI Workspace for later use.
Directions
Refer to the 15 research articles from your “Literature Evaluation Table – DPI Intervention” in Topic 4 to complete this assignment. Be sure to make any required changes or revisions prior to completing this assignment.
Write a 2,000-2,500-word syntheses of articles. Do not copy/paste the abstract. A synthesis is an integrative summary, in your own words, of the articles, their findings and a justification for how they support your intervention.
Include the following:
Introduction – Describe the clinical issue or problem you are addressing. Present your problem statement.
Search methods – Describe search strategy and the criteria you used to find and select the articles that support your intervention (e.g., data bases, limitations of the search, full text, peer-reviewed, English language).
Synthesis of the literature – For each research article, write a paragraph discussing the main components (subjects, methods, key findings) and provide rationale for how the article supports your intervention.
Comparison of articles – Compare the articles (similarities and differences, common themes, methods, conclusions, limitations, controversies).
Recommendations for future research: Based on your analysis of the literature, discuss identified gaps and which areas require further research. Describe how the gaps would impact your intervention and what specific research would be needed in this context.
Conclusion – Provide a summary statement of what you found in the literature.
Rubric Criteria
Total
210 points
Criterion
1. Unsatisfactory
2. Less Than Satisfactory
3. Satisfactory
4. Good
5. Excellent
Thesis Development and Purpose
Thesis Development and Purpose
0 points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
8.4 points
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
9.24 points
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
9.66 points
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
10.5 points
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
Paper Format
Includes the use of appropriate style for the major and assignment.
0 points
Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
13.44 points
Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.
14.78 points
Template is used and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
15.46 points
Template is fully used; there are virtually no errors in formatting style.
16.8 points
All format elements are correct.
Synthesis of Literature
Integration of components of each article integrated in concise summary. Includes rationale for how each article supports intervention.
0 points
The literature synthesis is omitted.
25.2 points
The literature synthesis is incomplete.
27.72 points
The literature synthesis summarizes most of the main components from the articles. General rationale is provided for how each article supports the intervention, but some aspects are unclear. There are minor inaccuracies.
28.98 points
The literature synthesis discusses the main components from the articles. Rationale is provided for how each article supports the intervention, but minor detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.
31.5 points
The literature synthesis thoroughly discusses the main components from the articles. Strong and clear rationale is provided for how each article supports the intervention.
Comparison of Articles
Comparison of the articles includes similarities and differences, common themes, methods, conclusions, limitations, and controversies.
0 points
The comparison of the articles is omitted.
16.8 points
The comparison of the articles is incomplete.
18.48 points
The comparison of the articles is adequate. It generally identifies and discusses most of the similarities and differences, common themes, methods, conclusions, limitations, and controversies among the articles. There are minor inaccuracies or omissions.
19.32 points
The comparison of the articles is good. It identifies and discusses the similarities and differences, common themes, methods, conclusions, limitations, and controversies among the articles. Minor detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.
21 points
The comparison of the articles is excellent. It thoroughly identifies and discusses the similarities and differences, common themes, methods, conclusions, limitations and controversies among the articles.
Overall Synthesis
Integration of concepts, information, and different aspects of the articles by the learner using their own words.
0 points
The overall paper is not a synthesis. Most sections are a copy and paste of the article sections or article abstracts.
16.8 points
Synthesis of concepts, information, or ideas is intermittent. The paper relies mostly on direct quotes or a listing of information from the articles.
18.48 points
Synthesis of concepts, information, or ideas is generally evident, but the paper still utilizes direct quotes or the listing of information when it could be presented by the learner in their own words.
19.32 points
The integration of concepts, information, and different aspects of the paper is good. The learner presents the information in their own words, using direct quotes or listing information sparingly.
21 points
The integration of concepts, information, and different aspects of the paper is excellent. The learner effectively and clearly presents the information in their own words, using direct quotes only when necessary.
Mechanics of Writing
Includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use.
0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.
8.4 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct, but not varied.
9.24 points
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
9.66 points
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.
10.5 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Empirical Research Supporting the Intervention
Empirical Research Supporting the Intervention
0 points
Fewer than three primary studies demonstrate a good or high level of evidence. Fewer than seven of the additional primary and secondary studies demonstrate a good or high level of evidence. More than three of the articles selected fail to meet the required criteria regarding publication date and country.
16.8 points
Only four of the primary studies demonstrate a good or high level of evidence. Eight of the additional primary and secondary studies demonstrate a good or high level of evidence. One or two of the articles used for additional support do not meet the required criteria regarding publication date and country.
18.48 points
The five primary studies demonstrate good level of evidence and demonstrate adequate support for the intervention. Nine of the 10 additional primary and secondary studies provide good support for the intervention. All 15 articles meet the required criteria regarding publication date and country.
19.32 points
The five primary studies demonstrate a good or high level of evidence and demonstrate support for the intervention. The 10 additional primary and secondary studies contain a sufficient level of evidence to provide support for the intervention. All 15 articles meet the required criteria regarding publication date and country.
21 points
The five primary studies demonstrate a high level of evidence and provide excellent support for the intervention. The 10 additional primary and secondary studies contain a high level of evidence and provide clear support for the intervention, or different aspects of the intervention. All 15 articles meet the required criteria regarding publication date and country.
Argument Logic and Construction
Argument Logic and Construction
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.
8.4 points
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
9.24 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.
9.66 points
Argument shows a logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
10.5 points
Argument is clear and convincing and presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
Search Methods
Search strategy and criteria for identifying articles supporting intervention.
0 points
The search methods are omitted.
8.4 points
The search methods and strategies and criteria for identifying articles supporting intervention are incomplete.
9.24 points
The search methods and strategies and criteria for identifying articles supporting the intervention are outlined. More information is needed.
9.66 points
The search methods and strategies and criteria for identifying articles supporting the intervention described. Minor detail is needed for clarity.
10.5 points
The search methods and strategies and criteria for identifying articles supporting the intervention are thoroughly described.
Recommendations for Future Research
Recommendations for future research based on analysis of literature.
0 points
Recommendations for future research are omitted.
16.8 points
Recommendations for future research are incomplete.
18.48 points
Recommendations for future research outline identified gaps, areas that require further research, how these would impact the proposed intervention, and what specific research would be needed in that context. Some aspects are unclear. There are minor inaccuracies.
19.32 points
Recommendations for future research describe identified gaps, areas that require further research, how these would impact the proposed intervention, and what specific research would be needed in that context. Minor detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.
21 points
Recommendations for future research thoroughly discuss identified gaps, areas that require further research, how these would impact the proposed intervention, and what specific research would be needed in that context.
Conclusion
The conclusion is omitted.
0 points
The conclusion is omitted.
8.4 points
The conclusion is incomplete or inaccurate.
9.24 points
The conclusion provides a general summary statement about what was found in the literature.
9.66 points
The conclusion provides an adequate summary about what was found in the literature.
10.5 points
The conclusion provides a clear and concise summary about what was found in the literature.
Documentation of Sources
Documentation of Sources Includes citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style.
0 points
Sources are not documented..
11.76 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
12.94 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
13.52 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
14.7 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of errors.
Introduction
Description of clinical issue or problem; Problem statement.
0 points
The introduction is omitted.
8.4 points
The introduction is incomplete.
9.24 points
The introduction outlines the clinical issue or problem and the problem statement, but some aspects are vague or there are minor inaccuracies.
9.66 points
The clinical issue or problem and problem statement are accurately described in the introduction. Minor detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.
10.5 points
The clinical issue or problem is thoroughly described. The problem statement is accurately and clearly presented. The introduction is well-developed.
