NRS 430-Knowledge, Beliefs, and Attitude and Hesitancy of Nurses in Nassau, The Bahamas toward the COVID-19 vaccines.
NRS 430-Knowledge, Beliefs, and Attitude and Hesitancy of Nurses in Nassau, The Bahamas toward the COVID-19 vaccines.
ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER!!!NRS 430-Knowledge, Beliefs, and Attitude and Hesitancy of Nurses in Nassau, The Bahamas toward the COVID-19 vaccines.
Rubric for assessing an Undergraduate Research project
Name of students:
CRITERIA | ||||
Excellent | Good | Satisfactory | Poor | |
Presentation and formatting
(5 points) Adheres to requirements, cover page, margins, line spacing, font, pagination, paragraphing, appendices, illustrations, graphs/charts, tables, labelling and numbering |
(4-3 points) Adheres to most requirements |
(2-1 point) Adheres to few requirements |
(< 1 point) Does not adhere to requirements
|
3 |
Abstract
(10-8 points) Concise summary, background, significance of the research/study, objectives, methodology, major findings, and conclusions, all key words within word limit. |
(7-6 points) Generally well-written summary except for shortcomings in one or two areas |
(5-4 points) Vague/imprecise summary, some findings and key words omitted, insufficient attention to word limit |
(< 1 point) Very inadequate/imprecise summary, no key words, text beyond the word limit |
6 |
Introduction and objectives
(10-8 points) Introduction: Clearly defines scope of study, shows significance of research, provides clear justification for the study. Objectives: Clearly stated, relate to the hypothesis/problem statement, appropriately placed after the introduction. |
(7-6 points) Introduction: Defines scope of study, shows significance of research, provides limited justification for the study. Objectives: Well-stated and shows some relationship to the hypothesis/problem statement, appropriately placed after the introduction. |
(5-4 points) Introduction: Some material not relevant/unconvincing in showing the significance of the work, background material sketchy. Objectives: Some indication of the objectives given but unconvincing as to the relationship with the hypothesis/problem statement. |
(< 4 points) Introduction: Much of the material irrelevant, significance of the research/study not shown, vague description of background eg. No connection of literature to research. Objectives: Not clearly stated . |
6 |
Literature review/Theory
(10-8 points) Relevant and current, logical development of supporting argument, wide range of sources, relevant, appropriately cited quotes |
(7-6 points) Generally clear and easy to follow, repeatable where appropriate, describes equipment and materials where necessary |
(5-4 points) Relevant material but not effectively organized to support argument, many references omitted, some theory included but application not clearly specified. |
(< 4 points) Much of the literature irrelevant, material insufficient to support argument, verbose but shows little evidence of critical analysis, relevant theory but not included/developed |
4 |
Methodology/Processes Description
(10-8 points) Accurate, clear, easy to follow, repeatable where appropriate, describes equipment and materials where relevant |
(7-6 points) Generally clear and easy to follow, repeatable where appropriate, describes equipment and materials where relevant |
(5-4 points) Unclear in key areas/some steps are missing making it difficult to repeat the procedure/follow process |
(< 4 points) Imprecisely/inaccurately written, difficult to follow or repeat, no/inadequate description of equipment and materials/processes. |
6 |
Referencing/documentation
(5 points) Accurate and consistent use of recommended style guide, appropriate and complete in-text citations, complete compilation of literature cited/referenced/bibliography |
(4-3 points) Very minor inaccuracies/inconsistencies in use of style guide, few in-text citations omitted, almost complete compilation of literature cited/referenced/bibliography |
(2 points) Some inaccuracies/inconsistencies in use of style guide, few in-text citations omitted, some omissions of literature cited/referenced/bibliography |
(< 2 points) Major inaccuracies/ inconsistencies in use of style guide ignored, unconventional in-text citations omitted, numerous omissions of literature cited/referenced/bibliography |
4 |
Style
(5 points) Paragraph structure, correct use of terms/diction, grammar, spelling, punctuation, sentence variety. |
(4 points) Errors in one area only |
(3-2 points) Error in two/three areas only. |
(< 2 points) Errors in more than three areas |
4 |
Overall presentation
(5 points) Unity, coherence, emphasis, completeness, clarity |
.
(4 points) Shortcomings in one area only |
(3-2 points) Shortcomings in two/three areas only |
(< 2 points) Shortcomings in more than three areas. |
3 |
Comments: This was a fairly well done proposal. The background was fairly well done but there is need for positioning the context for the study. There should be either hypothesis testing or research questions. The literature review is like an annotated bibliography and should be revised consistent with the variables of interest. The methods section is fairly well done and the sampling method needs clarification and more narrative.. 36/60 = 18/30
ORDER AN A++PAPER HERE