Evidence-Based Practice Project\/ Term paper \u2013 RUBRIC <\/p>\n
Criteria Rating<\/p>\n
Note: The details in this section of the rubric provide reasons why points may be taken off, but it is not all or nothing (i.e., you may have perfect APA format, but you did not check each box = 15 points). Points<\/p>\n
Details<\/p>\n
Minor details (materials on the first page of the EBPP) The materials (name, description of clinical case, ALL checked boxes, citations, etc.) are completely filled out, thoroughly and accurately. 20 points<\/p>\n
Excellent<\/p>\n
APA format is completely correct and everything on the first page is completely filled out (no blank checkboxes or text boxes and the problem is described thoroughly). 15 points<\/p>\n
Adequate<\/p>\n
APA format only has 1-2 minor errors but is otherwise fine. Most checkboxes and text boxes are completed. Problem is described with some detail, but not enough. 10 points<\/p>\n
Poor<\/p>\n
APA format has several errors (3- 4+). Some checkboxes and text boxes are filled out. 0 points<\/p>\n
Very Poor<\/p>\n
APA format has several errors (3-4+). There are blank checkboxes and\/or textboxes. 20<\/p>\n
PICO (Participants, Intervention, Control\/Comparator, Outcome measures) Information and Question Investigated (PER STUDY)<\/p>\n
Grading criteria: each of the subheadings must be completed, accurate, and done thoroughly using the full-text article. No section should be plagiarized. 20 points<\/p>\n
Excellent<\/p>\n
All PICO subheadings are done thoroughly and completely. I have no questions about what happened in each experimental study. I would be able to accurately describe them to someone else without reading anything but your summaries. 15 points<\/p>\n
Adequate<\/p>\n
I have some questions about the experimental studies after reading the summaries. One or more of the subheadings is not thoroughly done. I would be able to describe some aspects of the studies to someone else after reading your summaries. 10 points<\/p>\n
Poor<\/p>\n
Interpretation does not follow the criteria laid out in the subheadings. Could use more thought and thoroughness in the analysis of the articles. 0 points <\/p>\n
Very Poor<\/p>\n
No effort was given to these sections. Missing subheadings or inaccurate\/plagiarized information is presented. I would not be able to accurately describe any part of these studies to someone after reading your summaries. Not enough detail. Study 1: 20 points<\/p>\n
Study 2: 20 points<\/p>\n
Total: 40<\/p>\n
Main Findings (Results) of the experimental studies (PER STUDY)<\/p>\n
Grading criteria: an organized and brief description of the main findings relevant to your topic is presented for each study (this should NOT include participant characteristic\/demographics and you should NOT try to interpret them–simply report them) for each experimental study. Nothing should be plagiarized. 5 points<\/p>\n
Excellent<\/p>\n
A succinct and organized summary of the findings of each study is given. No other information is provided that is irrelevant to this section (i.e., a description of the participants, methods, limitations, or interpretation). 3 points<\/p>\n
Adequate<\/p>\n
A good summary of the findings of each study is given, but either some irrelevant details are included (e.g., methods or limitations) or some relevant details are missing. 0 points<\/p>\n
Needs work<\/p>\n
Results are not reported or are incorrect; unnecessary additional information is presented here; this section could be better organized; something was plagiarized. Study 1: 5 points<\/p>\n
Study 2:<\/p>\n
5 points<\/p>\n
Total: 10 points<\/p>\n
Strengths & Limitations<\/p>\n
Grading criteria: > two strengths and limitations are presented per study. The limitations can be ones you have determined yourself or limitations the researchers themselves state in the article. Note: You cannot use \u201csmall sample size\u201d as a limitation. Nothing should be plagiarized. 20 points<\/p>\n
Excellent<\/p>\n
Interpretation meets the criteria laid out in the subheadings. Thorough work and well-thought through analysis of the studies were done. 15 points<\/p>\n
Adequate<\/p>\n
Interpretation meets the criteria laid out in the subheadings for the section. Thought and effort were given to the analysis of each article but could use more elaboration. 10 points<\/p>\n
Poor<\/p>\n
Interpretation does not follow the criteria laid out in the subheadings. Could use more thought and thoroughness in the analysis of the articles.<\/p>\n
0 points<\/p>\n
Missing strength(s) and\/or limitation(s) <\/p>\n
There is missing text from this section and\/or vague answers are given, \u201csmall sample size\u201d was used as a limitation, or something is plagiarized. Study 1: 20 points<\/p>\n
Study 2:<\/p>\n
20 points<\/p>\n
Total: 40 points<\/p>\n
Intervention <\/p>\n
The three subheadings which comprise the intervention (i.e., Plan of Action). In the “Plan of Action: Specifics” section, you should fully describe the exercise prescription you will deliver your client (think FITT principles: Frequency, Intensity, Time, and Type) 60 points <\/p>\n
Excellent <\/p>\n
The intervention is very well thought through and evidence from the two experimental studies analyzed is adequately used to support it. After reading the three subheadings, I have no question about what and how you would implement this intervention for a client, and I will be convinced that this will work based on the evidence from the two studies you described. 40 points <\/p>\n
Adequate <\/p>\n
The intervention is well thought-through and has adequate evidence (i.e., experimental studies) to support it, but I still have questions after reading it. There is uncertainty in the methods through which you plan to deliver the intervention. 20 points <\/p>\n
Poor <\/p>\n
The intervention is not well supported by the experimental studies you’ve summarized. Further, there are serious issues with the amount of detail you’ve provided. I have a lot of questions after reading the intervention about how it would be implemented. 0 points <\/p>\n
Very poor <\/p>\n
There is little if any, evidence used to support the intervention, and\/or I have no idea what this intervention is attempting to do or how it will be implemented. 60<\/p>\n
General Criteria <\/p>\n
Overall: thoroughness (effort) and conciseness (writing only what needs to be written to the best of your ability); grammar, spelling, and punctuation; plagiarism 20 points <\/p>\n
Excellent <\/p>\n
Very thorough and written concisely. Grammar, spelling, and punctuation are perfect or have negligible mistakes. 15 points <\/p>\n
Adequate <\/p>\n
Fairly thorough and fairly concise. Some grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 10 points <\/p>\n
Poor <\/p>\n
Needs to be much more thorough or much more concise. Many grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 0 points<\/p>\n
Very poor <\/p>\n
Clear lack of effort and\/or clear lack of understanding on the assignment. Many grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 20<\/p>\n
PDFs<\/p>\n
A PDF of the full text of each experimental study is submitted (two total) <\/p>\n
10 points<\/p>\n
All PDFs submitted<\/p>\n
0 points<\/p>\n
Missing 1 PDF<\/p>\n
10<\/p>\n
Total Points: 200<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Evidence-Based Practice Project\/ Term paper \u2013 RUBRIC Criteria Rating Note: The details in this section of the rubric provide reasons<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47730","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n