Conduct a search for 10 peer-reviewed, translational research articles published within the last 5 years that demonstrate support for your PICOT. You may include previous research articles from assignments completed in this course. Use the “Literature Evaluation Table” provided to evaluate the articles and explain how the research supports your PICOT.
Literature Evaluation Table
Learner Name:
PICOT:
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article
Article Title and Year Published
Research Questions/ Hypothesis, and Purpose/Aim of Study
Design (Quantitative, Qualitative, or other)
Setting/Sample
Methods: Intervention/ Instruments
Analysis/Data Collection
Outcomes/Key Findings
Recommendations
Explanation of How the Article Supports Your Proposed EBP Practice Project Proposal
© 2021. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Criteria
Descript
ion
PICOT
5. Excellent
7.5 points
The
PICOT
is clearly and accurately presented.
4. Good
6.9 points
NA
3. Satisfactory
6.
6 points
NA
2. Less Than Satisfactory
6 points
NA
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The PICOT is omitted.
collapse
Articles
assessment
Articles
15 points
Criteria Description
Articles
5. Excellent
15 points
Sources are current and highly appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are accurate.
4. Good
13.8 points
Sources are current and generally appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are presented, but there are minor errors.
3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
Number of required sources is met, but some sources are outdated or inappropriate. Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are presented, but there are errors.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
Number of required sources is only partially met. Article citations and permalinks are presented. One or more links do not lead to the intended article.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Required number of sources are not included. Article citations and permalinks are omitted.
collapse
Research Question, Hypothesis, Purpose or Aim of Study
assessment
Research Question, Hypothesis, Purpose or Aim of Study
15 points
Criteria Description
Research Question, Hypothesis, Purpose or Aim of Study
5. Excellent
15 points
A discussion on the research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study is thoroughly and accurately presented for each article.
4. Good
13.8 points
Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for each article is adequately presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.
3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for each article is presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for each article is presented, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for one or more articles is omitted.
collapse
Study Design
assessment
Study Design
15 points
Criteria Description
Study Design
5. Excellent
15 points
A thorough and accurate discussion on the study design for each article is presented.
4. Good
13.8 points
The study design is adequately presented for each article. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.
3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
The study design is indicated for each article. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
The study design for each article is presented, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The study design for one or more article is omitted.
collapse
Setting and Sample
assessment
Setting and Sample
15 points
Criteria Description
Setting and Sample
5. Excellent
15 points
The setting and sample in which the researcher conducted the study are detailed and accurate for each article.
4. Good
13.8 points
The setting and sample are adequately presented for each article. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.
3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
The setting and sample are indicated for each article. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
The setting and sample are indicated for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The setting and sample are omitted for one or more of the articles.
collapse
Methods
assessment
Methods
15 points
Criteria Description
Methods
5. Excellent
15 points
A thorough and accurate discussion on the method of study for each article is presented.
4. Good
13.8 points
An adequate discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.
3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
The method of study for each article is presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies
2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
The method of study is presented for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Method of study for one or more articles is omitted. Overall, the methods of study are incomplete.
collapse
Analysis and Data Collection
assessment
Analysis and Data Collection
15 points
Criteria Description
Analysis and Data Collection
5. Excellent
15 points
A thorough and accurate discussion on the analysis and data collection for each article is presented.
4. Good
13.8 points
An adequate discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.
3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
Analysis and data collection for each article are presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
Analysis and data collection are presented for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Analysis and data collection for one or more articles is omitted. Overall, the analysis and data collection are incomplete.
collapse
Outcomes and Key Findings
assessment
Outcomes and Key Findings
15 points
Criteria Description
Outcomes and Key Findings
5. Excellent
15 points
A thorough and accurate discussion on the outcomes and key findings collection for each article are presented.
4. Good
13.8 points
An adequate discussion on outcomes and key findings for each article are presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.
3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
Outcomes and key findings for each article are presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
Outcomes and key findings are presented for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Outcomes and key findings for one or more articles are omitted. Overall, the outcomes and key findings are incomplete.
collapse
Recommendations
assessment
Recommendations
15 points
Criteria Description
Recommendations
5. Excellent
15 points
Researcher recommendations are accurately and thoroughly described for each article.
4. Good
13.8 points
Researcher recommendations for each article are accurately presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.
3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
Researcher recommendations for each article are presented. Researcher recommendations described for one article are inaccurate or incomplete.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
Researcher recommendations are indicated for each article. The researcher recommendations described for two of the articles are inaccurate or incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Researcher recommendations are omitted for one or more of the articles. The recommendations described for three or more articles are inaccurate or incomplete.
collapse Explanation of How
Articles
Support Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal assessment
Explanation of How Articles Support Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal
15 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of How Articles Support Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal
5. Excellent
15 points
A detailed explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. Support for the evidence-based project proposal is clearly evident.
4. Good
13.8 points
An explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. Adequate support for the evidence-based project proposal is demonstrated.
3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
A general explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. The explanation for one article is inaccurate or incomplete. Support for the evidence-based project proposal is generally evident.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
An explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. The explanation for two of the articles is inaccurate or incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
An explanation of how the article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is omitted for one or more of the articles. The explanation for three or more articles is inaccurate or incomplete.
collapse
Mechanics of Writing
assessment
Mechanics of Writing
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)
5. Excellent
7.5 points
The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. Good
6.9 points
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.
3. Satisfactory
6.6 points
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
6 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.
Criteria Descript
ion
PICOT
5. Excellent
7.5 points
The PICOT is clearly and accurately presented.
4. Good
6.9 points
NA
3. Satisfactory
6.6 points
NA
2. Less Than Satisfactory
6 points
NA
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The PICOT is omitted.
collapse Articles assessment
Articles
15 points
Criteria Description
Articles
Criteria Description
PICOT
5. Excellent
7.5 points
The PICOT is clearly and accurately presented.
4. Good
6.9 points
NA
3. Satisfactory
6.
6 points
NA
2. Less Than Satisfactory
6 points
NA
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The PICOT is omitted.
collapse Articles assessment
Articles
15 points
Criteria Description
Articles
