NRS 433 Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Patience
NRS 433 Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Patience
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.
In a 1,0001,250 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.
NRS 433 Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Patience
Attachments
NRS-433V-RS3-ResearchCritiqueGuidelinesPa
Research Critique Guidelines Part II
Quantitative Studies
Background
As noted above, nursing shortage is a critical issue that affects the safety and quality of care given to patients (Bittner & Bechtel, 2017). Nursing shortage is an issue that affects most of the healthcare organizations in America in the modern world. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) reports that the shortage of nurses in the US is anticipated to rise in the next decade due to the aging of the Baby Boomers. The aging of the Baby Boomers will also imply the increased need for care demands, hence, overburdening the already burden healthcare system due to nursing shortage (Mar? et al., 2019). Shortage of nurses in the US is also attributed to the low capacity of nursing schools that do not produce new nurses to meet the increasing demands (Sokhanvar et al., 2018).
Authors have explored the issue of shortage of nurses in their studies. One of the studies that examined the issue of nursing shortage is the one conducted by (Halter, Boiko, et al., 2017). Halter et al., (2017) identified in their study that nursing turnover is a critical factor contributing to the shortage of nurses being experienced in America today. As a result, the aim of their research was to investigate the determinants as well as consequences of staff turnover among adult nurses. The research question that guided their investigation was; what are the determinants and consequences of adult nursing staff turnover? Halter, Pelone et al., (2017) conducted another study to examine evidence-based interventions that can be used to address the issue of nursing shortage by reducing adult nursing turnover. The authors recognized the fact that nursing shortage is preventable by implementing practical interventions that aim at its contributing factors. Therefore, the research question that guided the authors was; what interventions can be embraced to reduce adult nursing turnover?
How do these two articles support the nurse practice issue you chose?
The articles by Halter, Pelone, et al. (2017) and Halter, Boiko, et al. (2017) answers the PICOT question for my project in a number of ways. Firstly, the article by Halter, Boiko, et al., (2017) answers the PICOT question by providing insights into the determinants of factors that contribute to shortage of nurses and its consequences. The information obtained from the article provides information about the severity and magnitude of the problem of nursing shortage, hence, increasing the need for the exploration of interventions to address the problem. The article by Halter, Pelone, et al., (2017) answers the PICOT question by providing evidence-based interventions that can be adopted to address the issue of nursing shortage. The article examines broad interventions that are applicable to health organizations in addressing the issue of nursing shortage. The article by Halter, Pelone, et al., (2017) provided interventions that are similar to those proposed in my PICOT question. The interventions include the adoption of teamwork approaches in nursing, effective leadership styles, preceptor-based programs, needs-based orientation programs, use of residency programs and expanding the training capacity of nursing education institutions. The two articles used previous studies with a mix of comparison groups comprising of nurses, nursing students, and healthcare leaders and managers. As a result, the comparison groups vary from those in my PICOT question.
Method of Study:
The studies by Halter, Pelone, et al., (2017) and Halter, Boiko, et al., (2017) were quantitative systematic reviews. The authors reviewed evidences from previous quantitative studies that examined the factors contributing to nursing shortage, including turnover by adult nurses. The quantitative systematic reviews that the authors performed are associated with a number of benefits as well as limitations. The benefits include the fact that they provide highly reliable and accurate data, addresses specific questions or hypothesis, and guides the identification of best practices in nursing. The method is however associated with limitations such as the lack of use of human subjects, using studies with bias, and presenting findings that may not be generalizable to a larger population.
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
Rough Draft Qualitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Rubric
Rubric Criteria
Total 190 points
Criterion
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
3. 3: Satisfactory
4. 4: Good
5. 5: Excellent
Ethical Considerations
Ethical Considerations
0 points
Discussion of ethical considerations when conducting nursing research is incomplete. A discussion on ethical considerations of the two articles presented in the essay is incomplete.
21.38 points
Discussion of ethical considerations when conducting nursing research is included but lacks relevant details and explanation. A discussion on ethical considerations of the two articles used in the essay is summarized but there are significant inaccuracies or omissions.
23.65 points
Discussion of ethical considerations when conducting nursing research is partially complete and includes some relevant details and explanation. A discussion on ethical considerations of the two articles used in the essay is discussed but there are some inaccuracies, or some information is needed.
26.79 points
Discussion of ethical considerations when conducting nursing research is complete and includes relevant details and explanation. A discussion on ethical considerations of the two articles used in the essay is presented; some detail in needed for accuracy or clarity.
28.5 points
Discussion of ethical considerations associated with the conduct of nursing research is thorough with substantial relevant details and extensive explanation. A detailed discussion on ethical considerations of the two articles used in the essay is presented.
Results of Study
Results of Study
0 points
Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is incomplete.
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.
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.
26.79 points
Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is complete and includes relevant details and explanation.
28.5 points
Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is thorough with substantial relevant details and extensive explanation.
Article Support of Nursing Practice Issue
Article Support of Nursing Practice Issue
0 points
Discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is incomplete.
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 are required.
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.
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.
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.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.
7.13 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.
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.
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.
9.5 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Thesis Development and Purpose
Thesis Development and Purpose
0 points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
7.13 points
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
7.89 points
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
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.
9.5 points
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
Documentation of Sources
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
0 points
Sources are not documented.
7.13 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
7.89 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
8.93 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
9.5 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
Qualitative Studies
Qualitative Studies
0 points
Only one article is presented. Neither of the articles presented use qualitative research.
7.13 points
Two articles are presented. Of the articles presented, only one article is based on qualitative research.
7.89 points
N/A
8.93 points
N/A
9.5 points
Two articles are presented. Both articles are based on qualitative research.
Argument Logic and Construction
Argument Logic and Construction
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.
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.
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.
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.
9.5 points
Argument is clear and convincing and presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
Method of Study
Method of Study
0 points
Discussion on the method of study for each article is omitted. The comparison of study methods is omitted or incomplete.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Background of Study
Background of Study
0 points
Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is incomplete.
14.25 points
Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is included but lacks relevant details and explanation.
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.
17.86 points
Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is complete and includes relevant details and explanation.
19 points
Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is thorough with substantial relevant details and extensive explanation.
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
0 points
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
7.13 points
Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.
7.89 points
Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
8.93 points
Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
9.5 points
All format elements are correct.
