NUR 720 Week 9: Training to Synthesize Evidence Assignment

NUR 720 Week 9: Training to Synthesize Evidence Assignment

NUR 720 Week 9: Training to Synthesize Evidence Assignment

Value: 50 points
Assignment Guidelines
Professor’s Tips
Expect the paper to be seven to eight pages (excluding title and reference pages).
Each of the works from your EET should be represented in the synthesis.
See the Canvas Files for an example paper.
In this assignment, you practice synthesizing information from the eight published works that you have critically appraised in your EET (your database). This assignment consists of two parts: a written paper (Word document) to synthesize the databases you reviewed, and an Evidence Table (Excel spreadsheet) to organize your critical appraisal of the evidence you found related to your clinical foreground question.
Remember: The goal of this synthesis section is to persuade the reader that first there is a significant problem as supported in the literature, and most importantly that your proposed intervention is supported in the literature.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Assignment Format
Assignment 9.1 Format Links to an external site.
Evidence Evaluation Table (EET)
The purpose of completing this table is to organize and critique the evidence you find related to your clinical foreground question. This week you are to edit this table based on your learning and instructor feedback. Add at least four (4) more articles to your EET. This should bring your total to at least eight (8) quality articles in your EET. Remember the articles in the EET are to support your chosen interventions(s).
Professor’s Tips
Remember: Group in themes, synthesize, and cite multiple authors for each theme. Each theme can be an intervention. You are expected to synthesize the research you analyzed in the EET. This synthesis includes evaluation; note that the word evaluation has the word value in it. It is helpful to remember to present to the reader the value the data held for you.
You will continue to gather at least 16 quality published works for your final synthesis paper in Week 13. Ideally, at least one of the references is a CPG, and one a PhD Dissertation or a DNP project. The completed Evidence Table will be submitted along with the final synthesis paper in Week 13.
Smart thinking
Consider submitting your revised draft to Smarthinking for writing assistance. In Canvas, select Smarthinking Online Tutoring from the Course Navigation.
Select Submit My Writing or Career Documents
Select Essay Center
You should receive feedback regarding the suggested revisions within 24 hours.
Turnitin
You will submit the assignment via Turnitin.
Note: The turnaround time for a larger paper like this is longer. It may take up to 7 to 10 days for your grade to be posted.
Submit your Excel file and Word document to the assignment link provided.
Submission
Submit your assignment and review full grading criteria on the Assignment 9.1: Training to Synthesize Evidence page.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Assignment 9.1: Training to Synthesize Evidence Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
Introduction:
view longer description 5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectations
Gives a clear and concise introduction to the paper. Introduces the situation to the reader.
4 to >3 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations
Introduction is brief, unfocused.
3 to >2 pts
Barely Meets Expectations
Introduction is vague or disorganized.
2 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Introduction confusing, lacks flow, misleads reader. / 5 pts
Background:
view longer description 5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectations
Gives a clear and concise explanation of the clinical issue/problem; background described fully and succinctly. Strong support given for significance of problem.
4 to >3 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations
Background described fully but not succinctly. Support given for significance of problem.
3 to >2 pts
Barely Meets Expectations
Background described fully but not succinctly. Weak support given for significance of problem.
2 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Background not clearly described, or support lacking for significance of problem. / 5 pts
Foreground Question:
view longer description 5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectations
Question written succinctly in PICO(T) format; variables identified correctly.
4 to >3 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations
Question written in PICO(T) but dependent or independent variable not identified correctly
3 to >2 pts
Barely Meets Expectations
Question identified but not in PICO(T) format or both variables not identified correctly.
2 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Question not clearly identified or, IV or DV not identified. / 5 pts
Evidence:
view longer description 10 to >9 pts
Meets Expectations
Search strategy thoroughly described; search results thoroughly explained; at least eight research studies and/or practice guidelines included. Presents types and levels of published works
9 to >8 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations
At least eight research studies and/or practice guidelines included and search strategy adequately described but incomplete description of search results. Presents types and levels of published works.
8 to >7 pts
Barely Meets Expectations
At least eight publications included but search strategy incompletely described, with omission of one of the items and incomplete description of search results. General statement(s) about types and levels of published works.
7 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Summary of levels of published works only, or some levels incorrect Fewer than eight publications included. / 10 pts
Synthesis of Evidence:
view longer description 15 to >14 pts
Meets Expectations
Gives a thorough and conclusive synthesis of the evidence by presenting themes.
14 to >12 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations
Gives a brief synthesis of the evidence but does not clearly present themes.
12 to >10 pts
Barely Meets Expectations
Gives a non-cohesive narrative summary of the evidence; does not present themes.
10 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Describes each publication individually. not synthesize. Fewer than eight publications included. / 15 pts
Strengths and Weakness:
view longer description 5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectations
Clearly and concisely identifies strengths and limitations.
4 to >3 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations
Presents only limitations copied from each publication.
3 to >2 pts
Barely Meets Expectations
Strengths or limitations unclear.
2 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Incomplete. / 5 pts
Conclusion:
view longer description 5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectations
Answers the foreground question; gives a clear and complete description of impact on practice which flows logically from the summary of evidence presented.
4 to >3 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations
Discusses all content areas but not all are clear, concise, and thorough.
3 to >2 pts
Barely Meets Expectations
Discusses only a part of the content areas, or the proposed change does not flow from the evidence presented.
2 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Incomplete, illogical conclusion. / 5 pts
Mechanics
view longer description 0 pts
1) No deduction
1) Up to two errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or APA format.
0 pts
2) 2 – 5% Deduction
2) Few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and/or APA format.
0 pts
3) 6 – 8% Deduction
3) Several errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and/or APA format.
0 pts
4) 10% Deduction
4) Numerous and distracting errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and/or APA format. / 0 pts
Evidence Evaluation Table (EET)
view longer description 0 pts
1) No deduction
1) Includes eight research studies & or practice guidelines; thoroughly evaluated and summarized; complete and accurate
0 pts
2) 2 – 5% Deduction
2) Includes eight publications, but briefly evaluated and summarized; complete but some inaccurate information provided.
0 pts
3) 8 – 10% Deduction
3) Includes eight publications; briefly evaluated and summarized; incomplete or inaccurate information provided.
0 pts
4) 15% Deduction
4) Includes fewer than eight references or; incorrectly evaluated and summarized; or incomplete information provided. / 0 pts
Total Points: 0
Choose a submission type