ASSIGNMENT: NRS 433 Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations

ASSIGNMENT: NRS 433 Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations

ASSIGNMENT: 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.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
ASSIGNMENT: NRS 433 Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

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.
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

Calculate the price
Make an order in advance and get the best price
Pages (550 words)
$0.00
*Price with a welcome 15% discount applied.
Pro tip: If you want to save more money and pay the lowest price, you need to set a more extended deadline.
We know how difficult it is to be a student these days. That's why our prices are one of the most affordable on the market, and there are no hidden fees.

Instead, we offer bonuses, discounts, and free services to make your experience outstanding.
How it works
Receive a 100% original paper that will pass Turnitin from a top essay writing service
step 1
Upload your instructions
Fill out the order form and provide paper details. You can even attach screenshots or add additional instructions later. If something is not clear or missing, the writer will contact you for clarification.
Pro service tips
How to get the most out of your experience with Proscholarly
One writer throughout the entire course
If you like the writer, you can hire them again. Just copy & paste their ID on the order form ("Preferred Writer's ID" field). This way, your vocabulary will be uniform, and the writer will be aware of your needs.
The same paper from different writers
You can order essay or any other work from two different writers to choose the best one or give another version to a friend. This can be done through the add-on "Same paper from another writer."
Copy of sources used by the writer
Our college essay writers work with ScienceDirect and other databases. They can send you articles or materials used in PDF or through screenshots. Just tick the "Copy of sources" field on the order form.
Testimonials
See why 20k+ students have chosen us as their sole writing assistance provider
Check out the latest reviews and opinions submitted by real customers worldwide and make an informed decision.
Medicine
Well researched paper. Excellent work
Customer 452441, November 11th, 2022
Medicine
Good work. Will be placing another order tomorrow
Customer 452441, November 11th, 2022
Medicine
Very fond of the paper written. The topic chosen is defiantly trending at this time
Customer 452495, July 27th, 2023
Medicine
This was done very well. Thank you!
Customer 452441, November 11th, 2022
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NURSE ADVOCATE HEALTHCARE PROGRAM
The absolute best ! Thanks for great communication, quality papers, and amazing time delivery!
Customer 452467, November 14th, 2022
Medicine
Great work, Thank you, will come back with more work
Customer 452441, November 11th, 2022
11,595
Customer reviews in total
96%
Current satisfaction rate
3 pages
Average paper length
37%
Customers referred by a friend
OUR GIFT TO YOU
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat