Course Project – Essentials of Evidence-Based Practice
Type of document Essay 15 Pages Subject area Nursing Academic Level Master
Style APA references 10
Order description:
Week 10
Introduction Resources Discussion Course Project Week in Review
Menu
NURS 5052/NURS 6052: Essentials of Evidence-Based Practice
Week 10: Weighing the Evidence
You may be familiar with the phrase, “Correlation does not imply causation.” For example, consider the following statistics:
99.7% of the people involved in air and auto accidents ate pickles within 14 days preceding the accident.
More than 90% of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
As the number of churches in an area increase, so does the rate of crime.
Obviously there is a faulty correlational link established in each case. This is an extremely significant concept to keep in mind when it comes to weighing the evidence in scholarly research. After researchers collect data and analyze it using the appropriate statistical tests and analyses, they must formulate interpretations about what the data, statistics, and analyses indicate. As a nurse engaged in evidence-based practice, it is important to understand how researchers generate conclusions so that you can recognize sound and unsound interpretations of data as you peruse the literature.
This week, you examine how researchers have reached their conclusions based on their data and analyze if their claims are valid.
Reference:
Anonymous. (1966). Pickles and humbug: A bit of comparative logic. The Journal of Irreproducible Results, 15(1), 18. Retrieved from http://www.jir.com/pickles.html
Reference:
Mikkelson, D., & Mikkelson B. (2006). Snopes.com: The dangers of bread. Retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/bread.asp
Reference:
University of Michigan. (n.d.). Power in numbers: Mastering the math you think you know. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~numbers/statistics/statistics3.html
Learning Objectives
Students will:
Evaluate the conclusions of a research study
Analyze areas for additional research on a specific research question
Develop a cohesive, evidence-based practice to address a specific PICOT question
Photo Credit: [alvarez]/[Vetta]/Getty Images
Learning Resources
Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.
Required Readings
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.
Review Chapter 2, Fig. 2.1
Chapter 29, “Systematic Reviews of Research Evidence: Meta-analysis, Metasynthesis, and Mixed Studies Review”
This chapter focuses on the different types of systematic reviews. The chapter discusses the advantages of this type of analysis and the steps for conducting a meta-analysis or metasynthesis.
Dingle, P. (2011). Statin statistics: Lies and deception. Positive Health, 180, 1. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
In this article, the author outlines how misleading statistics are used to make false claims about the positive use of statin drugs in order to retain a market share of sales for pharmaceutical firms.
Katapodi, M. C., & Northouse, L. L. (2011). Comparative effectiveness research: Using systematic reviews and meta-analyses to synthesize empirical evidence. Research & Theory for Nursing Practice, 25(3), 191–209. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
The authors of this article assert that more comparative effectiveness research (CER) is necessary to accommodate the elevated demand for evidence-based health care practices. The article supplies a summary of methodological issues relevant to systematic reviews and meta-analyses used in the process of CER.
Stichler, J. F. (2010). Evaluating the evidence in evidence-based design. Journal of Nursing Administration, 40(9), 348–351. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
The quality of evidence used in EBP can vary considerably. This article highlights the necessity of critically appraising facility design research articles and using a hierarchical model to rate the strength of evidence.
Bernd, R., du Prel, J.-B., & Blettner, M. (2009). Study design in medical research: Part 2 of a series on the evaluation of scientific publications. Deutsches Aerzteblatt International, 106(11), 184–189. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2695375/pdf/Dtsch_Arztebl_Int-106-0184.pdf
This article provides guidance in evaluating the study design of scientific publications for reliability and credibility. The authors suggest that the most important elements to consider are the question to be answered, the study population, the unit of analysis, the type of study, the measuring technique, and the calculation of sample size.
Walden University. (n.d.a). Paper templates. Retrieved July 23, 2012, from http://writingcenter.waldenu.edu/57.htm
This website provides you access to the School of Nursing Sample Paper, which will serve as a template for formatting your papers.
Media
Laureate Education (Producer). (2012g). Hierarchy of evidence pyramid. Baltimore, MD: Author.
This multimedia piece explains the hierarchy of evidence pyramid. The piece offers definitions and key information for each level of the pyramid.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2012n). Weighing the evidence. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 6 minutes.
In this video, Dr. Kristen Mauk provides insight about how she analyzed her data and interpreted meanings of what the data showed. She describes how she drew conclusions based on the results and how she explained unexpected findings that were contrary to her initial hypotheses.
Accessible player
Discussion: Weighing the Evidence
When conducting original research, the final step researchers must complete is weighing the evidence and interpreting the meanings of their data, statistics, and analyses. This is the culmination of the research process in which all of the research methods and designs can be synthesized into a meaningful conclusion. In this stage, researchers should formulate explanations for what their data indicates, determine whether the data answers their initial research question, identify areas of uncertainty, and consider directions for further research.
In this Discussion, you focus on one of the research articles that you identified for Part 2 of the Course Project (Literature Review). You then explore the process of how the researchers generated conclusions based on their data, consider other possible interpretations of their data, and formulate ideas for further research.
To prepare:
Review this week’s Learning Resources, focusing on how researchers find meaning in their data and generate sound conclusions. Pay particular attention to Table 2 in the article, “Study Design in Medical Research.”
Revisit the 5 articles that you identified in Part 2 of the Course Project. Select one to consider for the purpose of this Discussion.
Read sections of the chosen article where the data is presented, analyzed, and interpreted for meaning. What reasoning process did the researchers use to formulate their conclusions? What explanation did they give to support their conclusions? Were there any weaknesses in their analysis or conclusions?
Consider possible alternate conclusions that the researchers could have drawn based on their data.
Examine the findings that the article presents and consider how well they addressed the researcher’s initial question(s). What additional research could be done to build on these findings and gain a fuller understanding of the question?
By Day 3
Post an APA citation and brief summary of the research article that you selected. Describe the data and the results of any statistical tests or analyses presented in the article. Explain how the researchers formulated their conclusion, any weaknesses in their analysis or conclusions, and offer at least one alternate interpretation of their data. Propose at least one additional research study that could be done to further investigate this research topic.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.
By Day 6
Respond to at least two colleagues on two different days using one or more of the following approaches:
Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, and evidence.
Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own review of the literature in the Walden Library.
Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 10 Discussion Rubric
Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6
To participate in this Discussion:
Week 10 Discussion
Course Project
By Day 7
Submit your Course Project. Reminder: You will combine Parts 1, 2, and 3 of your Course Project (assigned in Weeks 2, 4, and 8 respectively) into one cohesive and cogent paper.
Note: In addition, include a 1-page summary of your project.
For this final iteration you will need to:
Submit your paper to Grammarly and SafeAssign through the Walden Writing Center. Based on then Grammarly and SafeAssign reports, revise your paper as necessary.
Reminder: The School of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. The School of Nursing Sample Paper provided at the Walden Writing Center provides an example of those required elements (available from the Walden University website found in this week’s Learning Resources). All papers submitted must use this formatting.
I will upload the three papers to combine and then all you need to do is a summary page
The first paper I messed up in suppose to have a PICO question if you want to add that which is Patient , problem or population, Intervention , comparison control or compare, and outcome
This is the rubric
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Name: NURS_5052_Week_10_Application_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Quality of Work Submitted:
The extent of which work meets the assigned criteria and work reflects graduate level critical and analytic thinking.
27 (27%) – 30 (30%)
Assignment exceeds expectations. All topics are addressed with a minimum of 75% containing exceptional breadth and depth about each of the assignment topics.
24 (24%) – 26 (26%)
Assignment meets expectations. All topics are addressed with a minimum of 50% containing good breadth and depth about each of the assignment topics.
21 (21%) – 23 (23%)
Assignment meets most of the expectations. One required topic is either not addressed or inadequately addressed.
0 (0%) – 20 (20%)
Assignment superficially meets some of the expectations. Two or more required topics are either not addressed or inadequately addressed.
Quality of Work Submitted:
The purpose of the paper is clear.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
A clear and comprehensive purpose statement is provided which delineates all required criteria.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Purpose of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Purpose of the assignment is vague or off topic.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
No purpose statement was provided.
Assimilation and Synthesis of Ideas:
The extend to which the work reflects the student’s ability to:
Understand and interpret the assignment’s key concepts.
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Demonstrates the ability to critically appraise and intellectually explore key concepts.
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Demonstrates a clear understanding of key concepts.
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Shows some degree of understanding of key concepts.
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Shows a lack of understanding of key concepts, deviates from topics.
Assimilation and Synthesis of Ideas:
The extend to which the work reflects the student’s ability to:
Apply and integrate material in course resources (i.e. video, required readings, and textbook) and credible outside resources.
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
Demonstrates and applies exceptional support of major points and integrates 2 or more credible outside sources, in addition to 2-3 course resources to suppport point of view.
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Integrates specific information from 1 credible outside resource and 2-3 course resources to support major points and point of view.
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Minimally includes and integrates specific information from 2-3 resources to support major points and point of view.
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
Includes and integrates specific information from 0 to 1 resoruce to support major points and point of view.
Assimilation and Synthesis of Ideas:
The extend to which the work reflects the student’s ability to:
Synthesize (combines various components or different ideas into a new whole) material in course resources (i.e. video, required readings, textbook) and outside, credible resources by comparing different points of view and highlighting similarities, differences, and connections.
18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
Synthesizes and justifies (defends, explains, validates, confirms) information gleaned from sources to support major points presented. Applies meaning to the field of advanced nursing practice.
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Summarizes information gleaned from sources to support major points, but does not synthesize.
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Identifies but does not interpret or apply concepts, and/or strategies correctly; ideas unclear and/or underdeveloped.
0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
Rarely or does not interpret, apply, and synthesize concepts, and/or strategies.
Written Expression and Formatting
Paragraph and Sentence Structure: Paragraphs make clear points that support well developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are clearly structured and carefully focused–neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity and clarity
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity and clarity 80% of the time.
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity and clarity 60%- 79% of the time.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity and clarity < 60% of the time.
Written Expression and Formatting
English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1-2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (3-4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
Written Expression and Formatting
The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1-2) APA format errors.
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (3-4) APA format errors.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_5052_Week_10_Application_Rubric
