| ASSESSMENT 3 BRIEF | |
| Subject Code and Title | EBP107 Evidence-Based Practice |
| Assessment | Assessment 3: Journal Article Evaluation: Using a critical appraisal tool |
| Individual/Group | Individual |
| Length | 1,500 words (+/- 10%) |
| Learning Outcomes | This assessment addresses the Subject Learning Outcomes outlined at the bottom of this document. |
| Submission | By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday of Module 5.2 (week 10) |
| Weighting | 45% |
| Total Marks | 100 marks |
Context:
This assessment enables students to demonstrate their ability to evaluate and appraise evidence in healthcare research, an essential component of evidence-based practice and the exercise of clinical judgement in the delivery of quality healthcare.
Students will use a critical appraisal tool and other supporting references to appraise and interpret the sections and methodological quality of a research article including how well the evidence may be applied in evidence-based practice.
Instructions:
Students are required to conduct an evaluation of one journal article in an essay format. The article may be the selected one used in Assessment 2 Article Summary task. Alternatively, you may choose to select an article of your choice from the range of research articles supplied for the previous Assessment 2 assignment.
This task requires using one of the critical appraisal tools supplied from a link below. Choose an appraisal tool that fits the chosen article to evaluation.
- CASP. (n.d.). CASP Checklists. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/
- Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM). (2014). Critical Appraisal Tools. https://www.cebm.net/2014/06/critical-appraisal/
- Equator Network.(n.d.). Reporting guidelines for main study types. http://www.equator-network.org/
- Joanna Briggs Institute (n.d). Critical appraisal tools. https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
Essay Format:
The article evaluation must be presented in an essay format, with an introduction, body and conclusion.
Introduction:
The introduction must introduce the article, including proper referencing of the article, and a discussion about why you chose that article to evaluate.
Body:
In the body of your essay you must:
- Use the critical appraisal tool you have chosen to evaluate all the sections of the research study, including the title, abstract and declarations.
- Throughout the body of your essay you are to refer to the chosen critical appraisal tool and use additional references to support your evaluation. Subheadings may be used.
3.. Provide a referenced definition of Evidence Based Practice (EBP), and a recommendation as to how well the findings from this study may be incorporated into EBP. Give reasons and offer evidence to support your evaluation.
Conclusion:
A brief discussion of the overall quality of the study with reference to the strengths and weaknesses as outlined in the body of the essay.
Referencing: It is essential that you use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research. Please see more information on referencing here: https://library.torrens.edu.au/academicskills/apa/tool
Word count: Please include the word count – excluding the reference list at the end of the assessment. Please adhere to the word count, if you exceed 1,500 words (+10%), the excess may not be graded.
Appendix: Include a copy of the completed critical appraisal tool as an appendix.
Submission Instructions:
Submit via the Assessment 3: Journal Article Evaluation link in the main navigation menu in EBP107 Evidence-Based Practice. The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the LMS portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.
Learning Rubric: Assessment 3 Journal Article Evaluation: using a critical appraisal tool
| Assessment Attributes | Fail (Unacceptable) 0- 49% | Pass (Functional) 50- 64% | Credit (Proficient) 65- 74% | Distinction (Advanced) 75 -84% | High Distinction (Exceptional) 85-100% |
| Knowledge and understanding Review and introduction provided for a chosen article. Percentage for this criterion: 20% | The chosen article being reviewed has not been clearly identified, information is disjointed or irrelevant comments are present. | The article being reviewed has been identified, however, appropriate referencing is not included and introduction provided is limited. | The article being reviewed is identified, referenced and clear introduction is provided. | The article being reviewed is identified, referenced and a succinct introduction is provided. | The article being reviewed is identified, referenced and thorough and succinct introduction is provided. |
| Application of new knowledge. Evaluation of journal article and adherence to the critical appraisal tool. Percentage for this criterion: 30% | Lack of application of new knowledge is evident. No reference to the critical appraisal tool. | Demonstrated application of new knowledge in evaluating a chosen journal article. Lacks reference to the critical appraisal tool. | Well-developed application of new knowledge and evaluation of chosen article with reference to the critical appraisal tool. | Thoroughly developed evaluation of chosen article with clear reference to the critical appraisal tool. | Highly sophisticated and creative evaluation of chosen article with thorough application of the critical appraisal tool. Excellent description and critique of each section. |
| Reasoning and presentation of argument and/or position. | Limited understanding of key concepts required to support discussion. | Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas. Often conflates/confuses assertion of personal opinion with information | Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. | Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course | Clearly discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and Information that is substantiated by robust evidence from the |
| Key concepts of discussion presented. Discriminates between personal opinion and substantiated information. Percentage for this criterion: 25% | Confuses logic and emotion. Information taken from reliable sources but without comments to support. | substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. | Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts, with a good description of the overall quality of research. Clear definition of Evidence Based Practice provided. | materials and extended reading. Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts, with a very good description and critique of the overall quality of research. Relevant and thorough definition of Evidence Based Practice. | research/course materials and extended reading. Information is taken from sources with a high level of interpretation/evaluatio n to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis. An excellent description of overall quality of research, including succinct and thorough definition of Evidence Based Practice provided. |
| Structure and writing style. Clarity of expression, planning and flow of work 15% | No evidence of planning. Inappropriate writing style. Needs work on structure, flow and order. Report missing structure of introduction, body and conclusion. | Adequate academic writing style. Basic structure, some areas may lack flow or order. Some aspects of report structure missing, lacking complete introduction, body and conclusion. | Good academic writing style. Logical sequence with clear structure. Report structure includes flow of introduction, body and conclusion. | Well-developed academic writing style. Clear expression with logical sequencing, flow and structure. Report structure includes clear presentation of introduction, body and conclusion. | Highly developed academic writing style. Clear and concise. Structure and sequencing effectively supports discussion, drawing concepts together. Report structure includes succinct presentation of introduction, body and conclusion. |
| Correct citation of key | Demonstrates | Demonstrates use of | Demonstrates use of | Demonstrates use of | Demonstrates use of |
| resources and | inconsistent use of good | credible and relevant | credible resources to | good quality, credible and | high-quality, credible and |
| evidence | quality, credible and | resources to support and | support and develop ideas. | relevant resources to | relevant resources to |
| relevant resources to | develop ideas, but these | support and develop | support and develop | ||
| support and develop | are not always explicit or | arguments and position | arguments and position | ||
| ideas. | well developed. | statements. | statements. | ||
| 10% | |||||
| Shows evidence of wide | Show evidence of wide | ||||
| scope within the | scope within and without | ||||
| organisation for sourcing | the organisation for | ||||
| evidence. | sourcing evidence. | ||||
| The following Subject Learning Outcomes are addressed in this assessment | |||||
| SLO a) | Describe the different forms of knowledge acquisition and the sources of evidence in health. |
| SLO b) | Explain the rationale and purpose of scientific research, evaluation and the evidence-based approach and ethical considerations in the context of healthcare. |
| SLO c) | Describe and interpret the hierarchy of evidence. |
| SLO d) | Retrieve and evaluate health information from databases, internet and library sources in order to inform and improve healthcare practice. |
| SLO e) | Identify and appraise the quality of the key components of an evidence- based, health science research article |
| SLO f) | Describe quantitative, qualitative and mixed research methodologies, research processes, data management and analysis. |
Get expert help for EBP107 Evidence-Based Practice and many more. 24X7 help, plag-free solution. Order online now!
