This criterion is linked
to a Learning OutcomeIn 2–3 pages, not
including title page and references, address the following:Identify your
selected article. Explain what characteristics make this a meta-analysis. | 20 to
>17.0 ptsExcellentThe article is clearly identified. The response
accurately, clearly, and concisely explains the characteristics that make it
a meta-analysis. 17 to
>15.0 ptsGoodThe
article is clearly identified. The response accurately explains the
characteristics that make it a meta-analysis. 15 to
>13.0 ptsFairThe
article is identified. The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely explains
the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis. 13 to
>0 ptsPoorThe response
inaccurately or vaguely identifies the article and explains the
characteristics that make it a meta-analysis, or it is missing. | 20 pts |
This criterion is linked
to a Learning OutcomeWere the inclusion and
exclusion criteria clearly stated? How were the articles that were included
selected? Do you agree with the researchers’ approach? Explain why or why
not. | 20 to
>17.0 ptsExcellentThe response provides an accurate, clear, and concise
explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly
stated and how included articles were selected. A critique of the
researcher’s approach with strong rationale is included. 17 to
>15.0 ptsGoodThe
response provides an accurate explanation of whether the inclusion and
exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were
selected. A critique of the researcher’s approach with rationale is included. 15 to
>13.0 ptsFairThe
response provides a somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of whether the
inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included
articles were selected. Critique of the researcher’s approach is somewhat
vague, or rationale is inadequate. 13 to
>0 ptsPoorThe response provides
an inaccurate and vague explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion
criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected or is
missing. Critique of the researcher’s approach is vague, inaccurate,
unsupported, or missing. | 20 pts |
This criterion is linked
to a Learning OutcomeDo you agree with the
conclusions? Explain why or why not. | 20 to
>17.0 ptsExcellentA clear and concise critique of the study’s conclusions
that demonstrates strong critical thinking is provided. 17 to
>15.0 ptsGoodA
clear critique of the study’s conclusions that demonstrates some critical
thinking is provided. 15 to
>13.0 ptsFairA
somewhat inaccurate or vague critique of the study’s conclusions is provided. 13 to
>0 ptsPoorAn inaccurate and
vague critique of the study’s conclusions is provided, or it is missing. | 20 pts |
This criterion is linked
to a Learning OutcomeExplain how you could
apply implications from the study to your nursing practice. | 25 to
>22.0 ptsExcellentAn accurate and detailed explanation of how the study
could be applied to nursing practice is provided. 22 to
>19.0 ptsGoodAn
accurate explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is
provided. 19 to
>17.0 ptsFairA
somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of how the study could be applied to
nursing practice is provided. 17 to
>0 ptsPoorAn inaccurate and
vague explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is
provided, or it is missing. | 25 pts |
This criterion is linked
to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and
Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear
points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate
continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and
rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose
statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required
criteria. | 5 to
>4.0 ptsExcellentParagraphs
and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity….
A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is
provided which delineates all required criteria. 4 to
>3.5 ptsGoodParagraphs
and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80%
of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is
stated, yet is brief and not descriptive. 3.5 to
>3.0 ptsFairParagraphs
and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity
60%–79% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the
assignment is vague or off topic. 3 to
>0 ptsPoorParagraphs and
sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60%
of the time…. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. | 5 pts |
This criterion is linked
to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and
Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper
punctuation | 5 to
>4.0 ptsExcellentUses
correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 to
>3.5 ptsGoodContains
a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3.5 to
>3.0 ptsFairContains
several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 to
>0 ptsPoorContains many (≥ 5)
grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s
understanding. | 5 pts |
This criterion is linked
to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and
Formatting: The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings,
font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers,
parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. | 5 to
>4.0 ptsExcellentUses
correct APA format with no errors. 4 to
>3.5 ptsGoodContains
a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. 3.5 to
>3.0 ptsFairContains
several (3 or 4) APA format errors. 3 to
>0 ptsPoorContains many (≥ 5)
APA format errors. | 5 pts |
