EBP 2nd Research Report Appraisal

Instructions
Read the Critique/Appraisal Guidelines (Attached). Read the Friesner research report article (attached) and appraise it using this guideline. Now that you have found the sections of a published research report, does this one meet the criteria?

Criteria
Level 4
10 points
Level 3
8 points
Level 2
6 points
Level 1
4 points
Criterion Score
Criterion 1 Research Problem and Purpose identified & Research Objectives, Questions, or Hypotheses
The student referenced the course materials with clarity and detail, demonstrating thoughtfully engagement with the assignment. Correct identification of components. Scholarly, accurate, answers using correct research terminology. High level of effort demonstrated consistently. Robust, enlightening responses to research questions. Clearly recognized and identified.
The student contributed several thoughtful responses. The student referenced some of the course materials, demonstrating some thoughtful engagement. Fairly accurate use of research terminology. Able to answer most questions. Robust responses. The student referenced the course materials with clarity and detail, demonstrating thoughtful engagement with the assignments. Somewhat clearly identified.
The student references course concepts and demonstrates familiarity with course materials but may need to spend more time thinking deeply and analytically about the assignment. Minimally describes and identifies.
The student contributed several unrelated responses. The student does not reference course concepts but does discuss tangentially related ideas. There is no evidence to suggest the student has engaged or thought deeply about the assignment. Unable to point out differences
Score of Criterion 1 Research Problem and Purpose identified & Research Objectives, Questions, or Hypotheses,/ 10
Criterion 2 Theoretical Framework & Related Literature Review
Thoroughly discusses and describes maps, diagrams, & relationship to concepts. Highlights inclusion of relevant previous studies. Discusses relevancy of theories, models, knowledge base, & currently appropriate literature foundation.
Somewhat thoroughly discusses and explains maps, diagrams, & relationship to concepts. Misses a few significant studies with seminal information or defining work or no substance or old but not foundational contribution.
Minimal discussion of theoretical framework & relationships and related literature review. Does not mention presence or absence of maps or models or diagrams.
Unable to explain theoretical framework for study. Unable to explain the relevancy of the literature review for study.
Score of Criterion 2 Theoretical Framework & Related Literature Review,/ 10
Criterion 3 Variables & Sample, Population, and Setting
Describes inclusion and exclusion sample criteria. Identifies any biases. Describes sampling method, size, peculiarities of the population, refusals to participate. Is the sample size sufficient to avoid a Type II error? Attrition of subjects is addressed.
Misses a few of the major variables, but able to define most of them. Comments on research definitions. Somewhat thorough discussion of sample, population, and setting. Attempts to determine the fitness with the study plan
Confuses the independent and dependent variables. Does not include demographics or confounding variables. Confuses randomized control study with convenience sample. Attempts to describe sample, population and setting in terms of study purpose.
Unable to identify the dependent/independent variables &/or confounding variables or the demographics. No attempt to discuss sample, population, and setting and appropriate fit. Haphazard response.
Score of Criterion 3 Variables & Sample, Population, and Setting,/ 10
Criterion 4 Research Design
Accurately identifies the research design with supporting evidence. Understands the differences between qualitative and quantitative. Discusses any threats to validity.
Somewhat accurately identifies the research design with supporting evidence. Understands the differences between qualitative and quantitative. Expresses correct definition of meta analyses. May ignore threat to validity.
Unable to accurately identify the research design. Confuses qualitative and quantitative designs. Inaccurate use of research terminology.
Unable to name the research design and supporting evidence. Confuses many definitions. Poor use of research terminology. Or no attempt to utilize research terminology.
Score of Criterion 4 Research Design,/ 10
Criterion 5 Ethical Considerations
Ably identifies IRB approval, informed consent, & anonymity to protect human subjects or lack thereof.
Somewhat thoroughly identifies IRB approval, informed consent, & anonymity to protect human subjects.
Can not explain why another IRB approval is not needed for published studies in a meta study.
Unable to point out the importance of protection of human subjects.
Score of Criterion 5 Ethical Considerations,/ 10
Criterion 6 Measurements & Data Collection
Discusses instruments reliability and validity. Accuracy & precision. Recording method.
Attempts to describe and evaluate data collection methods.
Makes an attempt to answer questions. Has difficulty describing data collection.
Unable to discuss instruments and reliability and validity or training. No attempt to elaborate.
Score of Criterion 6 Measurements & Data Collection,/ 10
Criterion 7 Data Analysis
Appropriate statistical methods for data collected? Tables & figures reviewed for accuracy & helpfulness.
Attempts to evaluate data analysis.
Difficulty evaluating data analysis.
No attempt. Does not elaborate.
Score of Criterion 7 Data Analysis,/ 10
Criterion 8 Interpretation of Findings
Discusses statistical & clinical significance. Addresses generalizations that fit the population.
Somewhat thorough discussion of statistical and clinical significance. Attempts to explain generalizations.
Unable to explain interpretation of findings.
No discussion. There is no evidence to suggest that the student has engaged with the assignment.
Score of Criterion 8 Interpretation of Findings,/ 10
Criterion 9 Limitations, Conclusions, and Implications
Thoroughly discusses limitations. Consider implications for nursing practice.
Somewhat thorough comprehension of limitations. Considers implications for nursing practice.
Little understanding of limitations, implications, or meanings.
No mention of limitations, conclusions and/or implications.
Score of Criterion 9 Limitations, Conclusions, and Implications,/ 10
Criterion 10 Timeliness, grammar, sentence structure, APA format
Submission on time Proper grammar and sentence structure in APA format.
1 day late. APA with a few mistakes. Mostly clear in meaning.
Late by 2 days. APA with many mistakes. At times in certain places it lacks clarity.
Late by 3 days. No proper APA format or style. Lacks clarity.
Score of Criterion 10 Timeliness, grammar, sentence structure, APA format,/ 10
Total
Score of First Research Report Critical Appraisal,/ 100

You may want to use one of the 2 shorter versions attached below: Evaluating A Quantitative Research Report or Alternate form of Article Appraisal. It is your choice.

But be sure to define the Independent variable, the dependent variable, and research or confounding or extraneous variables.