Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Evidence-Based Project, Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies - School Writers

Evidence-Based Project, Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies

PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AS INDICATED BELOW:

1). ZERO (0) PLAGIARISM

2). ATLEAST 5 REFERENCES, NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS

3). PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING ATTACHED RUBRIC DETAILS. 

Thank you.  

Is there a difference between “common practice” and “best practice”?

When you first went to work for your current organization, experienced colleagues may have shared with you details about processes and procedures. Perhaps you even attended an orientation session to brief you on these matters. As a “rookie,” you likely kept the nature of your questions to those with answers that would best help you perform your new role.

Over time and with experience, perhaps you recognized aspects of these processes and procedures that you wanted to question further. This is the realm of clinical inquiry.

Clinical inquiry is the practice of asking questions about clinical practice. To continuously improve patient care, all nurses should consistently use clinical inquiry to question why they are doing something the way they are doing it. Do they know why it is done this way, or is it just because we have always done it this way? Is it a common practice or a best practice?

In this Assignment, you will identify clinical areas of interest and inquiry and practice searching for research in support of maintaining or changing these practices. You will also analyze this research to compare research methodologies employed.

To Prepare:

  • Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry. Keep in mind that the clinical issue you identify for your research will stay the same for the entire course. 
  • Based on the clinical issue of interest and using keywords related to the clinical issue of interest, search at least four different databases in the Walden Library to identify at least four relevant peer-reviewed articles related to your clinical issue of interest. You should not be using systematic reviews for this assignment, select original research articles.
  • Review the results of your peer-reviewed research and reflect on the process of using an unfiltered database to search for peer-reviewed research.
  • Reflect on the types of research methodologies contained in the four relevant peer-reviewed articles you selected.

Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies

After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following:

  • The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.
  • A brief (1-paragraph) statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest.
  • A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article.
  • A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.
  • A brief (1- to 2-paragraph) description of the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles you selected.

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.

Content

Name: NURS_6052_Module02_Week03_Assignment_Rubric

  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following: *The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format. *A brief statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest. *A brief description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article. *A brief description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific. Points: Points Range: 81 (81%) – 90 (90%) The response accurately and clearly provides a full citation of each article in APA format. The responses accurately and thoroughly explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including a detailed explanation of the ethics of research. The responses accurately and clearly describe the aims of the research. The responses accurately and clearly describe the research methodology used, and clearly identify the type of methodology used with specific and relevant examples. The responses accurately and clearly describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including a detailed explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected. The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources related to the selection of articles and two or three course-specific resources. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 72 (72%) – 80 (80%) The response accurately provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format. The responses accurately explain the selection of these peer-reviewed articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including an accurate explanation of ethics. The responses accurately describe the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article. The responses accurately describe the research methodology used and type of methodology used with some examples. The responses accurately describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including an explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles selected. The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the selection of the peer-reviewed articles. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 63 (63%) – 71 (71%) The response inaccurately or vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format. The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including the explanation of the ethics. The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the aims of the research of each article. The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the research methodology used and the type of methodology used, with only some examples. The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected. The responses provided vaguely or inaccurately synthesize outside resources related to the selection of the articles. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 62 (62%) The response inaccurately and vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format or is missing. The responses inaccurately & vaguely explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue, including the explanation of ethics of research, or they are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the aims of the research, or they are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the research methodology used, the type of methodology used with no examples present, or they are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the strengths of each of the methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity of the methodology, or they are missing. The responses provide a vague and inaccurate synthesis of outside resources related to the selection of the articles and fail to integrate any resources to support the responses provided, or is missing. Feedback:
Written 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. Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated but are brief and not descriptive. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Paragraphs 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. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion is provided. Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation. Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. Feedback:

Show Descriptions Show Feedback

Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following: *The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format. *A brief statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest. *A brief description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article. *A brief description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 81 (81%) – 90 (90%) The response accurately and clearly provides a full citation of each article in APA format. The responses accurately and thoroughly explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including a detailed explanation of the ethics of research. The responses accurately and clearly describe the aims of the research. The responses accurately and clearly describe the research methodology used, and clearly identify the type of methodology used with specific and relevant examples. The responses accurately and clearly describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including a detailed explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected. The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources related to the selection of articles and two or three course-specific resources. Good 72 (72%) – 80 (80%) The response accurately provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format. The responses accurately explain the selection of these peer-reviewed articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including an accurate explanation of ethics. The responses accurately describe the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article. The responses accurately describe the research methodology used and type of methodology used with some examples. The responses accurately describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including an explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles selected. The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the selection of the peer-reviewed articles. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources. Fair 63 (63%) – 71 (71%) The response inaccurately or vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format. The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including the explanation of the ethics. The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the aims of the research of each article. The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the research methodology used and the type of methodology used, with only some examples. The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected. The responses provided vaguely or inaccurately synthesize outside resources related to the selection of the articles. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided. Poor 0 (0%) – 62 (62%) The response inaccurately and vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format or is missing. The responses inaccurately & vaguely explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue, including the explanation of ethics of research, or they are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the aims of the research, or they are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the research methodology used, the type of methodology used with no examples present, or they are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the strengths of each of the methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity of the methodology, or they are missing. The responses provide a vague and inaccurate synthesis of outside resources related to the selection of the articles and fail to integrate any resources to support the responses provided, or is missing. Feedback:

Written 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.–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria. Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated but are brief and not descriptive. Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Paragraphs 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. Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion is provided. Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria. Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_6052_Module02_Week03_Assignment_Rubric

,

image1.emf

Matrix Worksheet Template

Use this document to complete Part 2 of the Module 2 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 1: An Introduction to Clinical Inquiry and Part 2: Research Methodologies

Full citation of selected article

Article #1

Article #2

Article #3

Article #4

Why you chose this article and/or how it relates to the clinical issue of interest (include a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest)

Brief description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article

Brief description of the research methodology used Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative , quantitative , or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.

A brief description of the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles you selected.

General Notes/Comments

Matrix Worksheet Template

© 2018 Laureate Education Inc. 2

,

Weeks 3 Assignment

Instructor’s Comments

Thank you for your assignment submission, Catherine. After reading the articles, you completed the Matrix Worksheet.  I would like to see more in your discussion for most areas in your matrix. 

You analyzed your articles by providing at least a 1 paragraph statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest. I would like to see an explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest. You should say more in your 1-2 paragraph description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article. I would like to see more in your 1-2 paragraph, brief  description of the research methodology used, and more about identifying if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources related to the selection of articles but not two or three course-specific resources.

I do not see an OVERALL introduction, purpose statement or conclusion for your work.  You do not have a reference section.

Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization were good.  You had no errors in grammar/spelling and/or APA formatting in your document.  84

Thank you for your assignment submission, Catherine. After reading the articles, you completed the Matrix Worksheet. I would like to see more in your discussion for most areas in your matrix. You analyzed your articles by providing at least a 1 paragraph statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest. I would like to see an explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest. You should say more in your 1-2 paragraph description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article. I would like to see more in your 1-2 paragraph, brief description of the research methodology used, and more about identifying if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources related to the selection of articles but not two or three course-specific resources. I do not see an OVERALL introduction, purpose statement or conclusion for your work. You do not have a reference section. Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization were good. You had no errors in grammar/spelling and/or APA formatting in your document. 84

,

Rubric Detail

A rubric lists grading criteria that instructors use to evaluate student work. Your instructor linked a rubric to this item and made it available to you. Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.

Content

https%3A%2F%2Fclass.waldenu.edu%2Fwebapps%2Frubric%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fcourse%2FrubricGradingPopup.jsp%3Fmode%3Dgrid%26isPopup%3Dtrue%26rubricCount%3D1%26prefix%3D_22849975_1%26course_id%3D_16766395_1%26maxValue%3D100.0%26rubricId%3D_2023367_1%26viewOnly%3Dtrue%26displayGrades%3Dtrue%26type%3Dgrading%26rubricAssoId%3D_2764314_1

Name: NURS_6052_Module02_Week03_Assignment_Rubric

  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following: *The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format. *A brief statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest. *A brief description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article. *A brief description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific. Points: Points Range: 81 (81.00%) – 90 (90.00%) The response accurately and clearly provides a full citation of each article in APA format. The responses accurately and thoroughly explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including a detailed explanation of the ethics of research. The responses accurately and clearly describe the aims of the research. The responses accurately and clearly describe the research methodology used, and clearly identify the type of methodology used with specific and relevant examples. The responses accurately and clearly describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including a detailed explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected. The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources related to the selection of articles and two or three course-specific resources. Feedback: Points: 79 (79.00%) Points Range: 72 (72.00%) – 80 (80.00%) The response accurately provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format. The responses accurately explain the selection of these peer-reviewed articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including an accurate explanation of ethics. The responses accurately describe the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article. The responses accurately describe the research methodology used and type of methodology used with some examples. The responses accurately describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including an explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles selected. The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the selection of the peer-reviewed articles. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 63 (63.00%) – 71 (71.00%) The response inaccurately or vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format. The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including the explanation of the ethics. The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the aims of the research of each article. The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the research methodology used and the type of methodology used, with only some examples. The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected. The responses provided vaguely or inaccurately synthesize outside resources related to the selection of the articles. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) – 62 (62.00%) The response inaccurately and vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format or is missing. The responses inaccurately & vaguely explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue, including the explanation of ethics of research, or they are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the aims of the research, or they are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the research methodology used, the type of methodology used with no examples present, or they are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the strengths of each of the methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity of the methodology, or they are missing. The responses provide a vague and inaccurate synthesis of outside resources related to the selection of the articles and fail to integrate any resources to support the responses provided, or is missing. Feedback:
Written 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. Points: Points Range: 5 (5.00%) – 5 (5.00%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 4 (4.00%) – 4 (4.00%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated but are brief and not descriptive. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 3.5 (3.50%) – 3.5 (3.50%) Paragraphs 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. Feedback: Points: 2 (2.00%) Points Range: 0 (0.00%) – 3 (3.00%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion is provided. Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation. Points: Points Range: 5 (5.00%) – 5 (5.00%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 4 (4.00%) – 4 (4.00%) Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 3.5 (3.50%) – 3.5 (3.50%) Contains several (three or fou

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.

Do you need an answer to this or any other questions?