Can you help with this question

Full Marks

All key elements are present: Author credentials listed, article is less than 5 years old, and publication is peer reviewed/ scholarly, article is based on research and relates to the chosen topic of concern; is a primary source

Average Marks

Two key elements are present: Author credentials listed, article is less than 5 years old, ad publication is peer reviewed/ scholarly, article is based on research and relates to the chosen topic of concern but is a secondary source

Low Marks

One key element is listed: Author credentials listed, article is less than 5 years old, ad publication is peer reviewed/ scholarly, the articles only partially relate to the chosen topic of concern or is a secondary source

Poor Marks

Missing key elements: Author credentials listed, article is more than 5 years old, and publication is peer reviewed/ scholarly, the article has little or nothing to do with the topic of concern and is a secondary source. The article is not research

Full Marks

All key elements are present: appropriate research design identified, thorough description of intervention, justification for not using a different research design, longitudinal or prospective, or causal intent. Identifies IV and DV if appropriate

Average Marks

Elements are covered but not in enough depth: appropriate research design identified, thorough description of intervention, justification for not using a different research design, longitudinal or prospective, or causal intent. Identifies IV and DV if appropriate

Low Marks

Missing elements in this category- research design or intervention: appropriate research design identified, thorough description of intervention, justification for not using a different research design, longitudinal or prospective, or causal intent. Identifies IV and DV if appropriate

Poor Marks

Missing key elements: does not identify the correct research design, no description of the intervention (if present), does not identify IV or DV (if appropriate)

Full Marks

Key elements addressed: What was the strength of the evidence in support of your research topic- what model was used to grade the evidence? What evaluation tool was used to assess the evidence?

Average Marks

Key elements are not well described but are present: Strength of evidence, model used to grade the evidence and evaluation tool used.

Low Marks

Missing elements in this category: Includes some information but it missing content related to grading the evidence, model use or evaluation tool.

Poor Marks

Does not include the level of evidence and model used to grade it. Does not use an evaluation tool to assess design

Full Marks

Key elements addressed: was population identified, were sample procedures described? What type sampling plan as used? How were people recruited? Was there a power analysis? Was sample size large enough? All elements thoroughly addressed.

Average Marks

Key elements are not well described but are present: was population identified, were sample procedures described? What type sampling plan as used? How were people recruited? Was there a power analysis? Was sample size large enough?

Low Marks

Missing or superficial information: was population identified, were sample procedures described? What type sampling plan as used? How were people recruited? Was there a power analysis? Was sample size large enough?

Poor Marks

Does not include a discussion of the participants, how they were recruited, power analysis information, sample size adequacy. Limited information included.

Full Marks

Key Elements addressed: includes a complete and thorough discussion of the instruments used, types of questions, reliability- (Cronbach alpha) and validity, LOM

Average Marks

Key elements are not well described but are present: includes some discussion of the instruments used, types of questions, reliability- (Cronbach alpha) and validity, LOM

Low Marks

Key elements are missing or are very superficial: includes a complete discussion of the instruments used, types of questions, reliability (Cronbach alpha) and validity, LOM

Poor Marks

Does not include information concerning reliability or validity of instruments.

Full Marks

Key elements addressed thoroughly: Was level of measurement identified? Were inferential stats used? Were tests parametric or nonparametric- why used? Were there significant results? Was there an appropriate amount of statistics info reported? Were all important results discussed?

Average Marks

Key elements are not well described but are present: Was level of measurement identified? Were inferential stats used? Were tests parametric or nonparametric- why used? Were there significant results? Was there an appropriate amount of statistics info reported? Were all important results discussed?

Low Marks

Key elements are missing or very superficial discussion: Was level of measurement identified? Were inferential stats used? Were tests parametric or nonparametric- why used? Were there significant results? Was there an appropriate amount of statistics info reported? Were all important results discussed?

Poor Marks

Missing information from discussion of data analysis: does not identify statistics used, no LOM, findings or results

Full Marks

Key elements addressed thoroughly: Was interpretation appropriate? Were limitations identified? Addressed study implications for clinical practice, did they make specific recommendations or miss important implications? Did research address clinical significance? Did they address generalizability?

Average Marks

Key elements are not well described but are present: interpretation, limitations, implications for clinical practice, clinical significance, generalizability

Low Marks

Key elements superficial : interpretation, limitations, implications for clinical practice, clinical significance, generalizability

Poor Marks

Missing information regarding: interpretation, limitations, implications for clinical practice, clinical significance, generalizability

Full Marks

Key elements answered thoughtfully: is the information biased or objective, useful and reliable or not? How does the source compare with other reviewed articles? How is this information similar or different from other articles you have read? Was the information helpful? How?

Average Marks

Key elements are not well described but are present: is the information biased or objective, useful and reliable or not? How does the source compare with other reviewed articles? How is this information similar or different from other articles you have read? Was the information helpful? How?

Low Marks

Key elements are present but superficial: is the information biased or objective, useful and reliable or not? How does the source compare with other reviewed articles? How is this information similar or different from other articles you have read? Was the information helpful? How?

Poor Marks

Missing key elements: is the information biased or objective, useful and reliable or not? How does the source compare with other reviewed articles? How is this information similar or different from other articles you have read? Was the information helpful? How?

Full Marks

Key Elements: Thorough and complete discussion about the quality of the articles (level of evidence), overall findings, what research still needs to be done on your topic, identifies gaps in care, addresses health promotion pertinent for area, analyzes interventions for populations. Did the article change your thinking about your research topic?

Average Marks

Discusses each article individually, with some evaluation of quality and needed research. Did the article change your thinking about your research topic? Addresses a gap in care of population, few health promotion or prevention issues, few interventions for population

Low Marks

Includes most of the articles, spotty evaluation of the articles, no research identified, limited discussion if view changed on the topic. Limited analysis/summary with focus on gaps identified, health prevention/promotion or interventions

No Marks

Does not include the summary of all 5 articles, no evaluation of quality of the articles, no needed research identified, limited discussion addressing gaps in care, health promotion/prevention or interventions. Did not address if view on topic has changed

Full Marks

No grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. Succinct

Average Marks

Almost no grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. Nearly succinct

Low Marks

A few grammatical spelling or punctuation errors.

No Marks

Many grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. Too brief or not succinct

Full Marks

Source is consistently documented in APA format

Average Marks

Source is accurately documented but a few minor errors noted

Low Marks

Multiple errors in accuracy and APA format.

No Marks

Sources are neither accurately documented nor in APA Format