DNP 801 Week 6 Literature Search GCU

DNP 801 Week 6 Literature Search GCU

DNP 801 Week 6 Literature Search GCU

The purpose of this assignment is to introduce the method of critical thinking required for searching, evaluating, and organizing research articles to support your proposed PICOT-D question.
General Requirements:
• Utilize the attached “Literature Evaluation Table” to complete this assignment.
• Use the “Levels of Evidence in Research” chart, located in Class Resources, to assist in completing the assignment.
• Use the “Searching Nursing Databases,” located on the Doctor of Nursing Practice page in the GCU Library, to assist in completing the assignment.
• A minimum of five primary quantitative research articles, published within 5 years of your anticipated graduation date, are required to complete this assignment.
• Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center.
• This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
• You are not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.
Directions:
For this assignment, you will search for and evaluate literature to identify supporting evidence for your proposed PICOT-D question from your “PICOT-D Question Template.” Complete the following:
1. Review the “Levels of Evidence in Research” chart and the “Literature Evaluation Table” document prior to beginning this assignment. Refer to the criteria on these respective documents for identifying and evaluating acceptable research for your future DPI Project.
2. Conduct a search in the GCU Library using the nursing databases and find a minimum of five primary quantitative research articles to support your PICOT-D question. Two must provide direct support for your proposed intervention. You may use research articles from your previous assignments if the articles meet the specified criteria for this assignment.
3. Use the “Literature Evaluation Table” to evaluate the quality of the primary quantitative research articles you selected for PICOT-D question. As you evaluate the selected articles, remove and replace any articles that fail to meet the criteria on the table.
4. If your intervention is a clinical practice guideline, or is coming from a clinical practice guideline, identify your clinical practice guideline in Table 3 of the “Literature Evaluation Table” and include the primary quantitative research from the clinical practice guideline in Table 1 (PICOT-D Question) or Table 2 (Intervention).
5. Once you have five primary quantitative research articles identified, submit the “Literature Evaluation Table.”
Attachments
DNP-801A-RS6-LiteratureEvaluationT

Literature Search – Rubric
Collapse All Literature Search – RubricCollapse All
PICOT-D Question
11 points
Criteria Description
PICOT-D Question
5. Target
11 points
The PICOT-D question is accurately presented.
4. Acceptable
10.12 points
NA
3. Approaching
9.68 points
The PICOT-D question is presented, but there are minor errors.
2. Insufficient
8.8 points
The PICOT-D question is presented, but there are errors and inaccuracies throughout.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The PICOT-D question is omitted.
APA References for Research Articles
11 points
Criteria Description
APA style; includes the GCU permalink or working link used to access the article.
5. Target
11 points
APA style is used in the reference formatting. There are no errors. The links provide access to the articles.
4. Acceptable

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: DNP 801 Week 6 Literature Search GCU 

10.12 points
APA style is used in the reference formatting. There minor errors. The links provide access to the articles.
3. Approaching
9.68 points
APA style is used in the reference formatting, but there some errors and inaccuracies. The links provide access to the articles.
2. Insufficient

8.8 points
APA style is used in the reference formatting, but there are major errors or omissions. One or two links do not provide access to the articles.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
APA style is not used in the reference formatting. Multiple links are missing or do not work.
Identification and Evaluation of Primary Quantitative Research for PICOT-D Question and Intervention
82.5 points
Criteria Description
Articles meet criteria required for primary quantitative research supporting the PICOT-D question and intervention. Articles are evaluated using criteria in the literature evaluation table. Includes primary quantitative research from clinical practice guidelines, if applicable. If applicable, clinical practice guidelines are addressed in Table 2.
5. Target
82.5 points
All five articles, including articles from the clinical practice guidelines, if applicable, meet the criteria required for a primary quantitative research article. The evaluation of each article is concise, informative, and accurate. How each article and applicable clinical practice guidelines support the proposed the PICOT-D question or intervention is clearly explained. At least two articles provide direct support for the intervention.
4. Acceptable
75.9 points
All five articles, including articles from the clinical practice guidelines, if applicable, meet the criteria required for a primary quantitative research article. The evaluation of each article is complete, but there are some minor errors or inaccuracies. How each article and applicable clinical practice guidelines support the proposed the PICOT-D question or intervention is adequately explained. At least two articles provide adequate support for the intervention. Some detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.
3. Approaching
72.6 points
Four articles, including articles from the clinical practice guidelines, if applicable, meet the criteria required for a primary research article. The evaluation of each of the four articles is complete, but a few key aspects are inaccurate or incorrect. General explanations for how each article and applicable clinical practice guidelines support the PICOT-D question or intervention are presented. Only one article provides sufficient support for the intervention.
2. Insufficient
66 points
Three articles, including articles from the clinical practice guidelines, if applicable, meet the criteria required for a primary research article. The evaluation of the articles contains numerous inaccuracies. It is unclear how the research articles, and clinical practice guidelines support the intervention.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Only two articles meet the criteria required for a primary research article. The evaluation of each of the four articles is incomplete. Clinical guidelines are used, but the primary quantitative research is omitted.
Mechanics of Writing
5.5 points
Criteria Description
Includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use.
5. Target
5.5 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. Acceptable
5.06 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. Approaching
4.84 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. Insufficient
4.4 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 used.
Total 110 points

Reflective Learning, Reflective Practice

Read:

Jacobs, S. (2016). Reflective learning, reflective practice. Nursing, 46(5), 62-64.

… Read More

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://gateway.ovid.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&AN=00152193-201605000-00018&LSLINK=80&D=ovft

Why Do We Read Many Articles With Bad Statistics?: What Does the New American Statistical Association’s Statement on P-Values Mean?

Read:

Sangseok, L. (2016). Why do we read many articles with bad statistics?: What does the new American Statistical Association’s

… Read More

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=114677864&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Word: Track Changes and Comments

View:

GCFLearnFree.org. (2016, February 8). Word: Track changes and comments. [Video]. YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/w

Literature Search – Rubric

Collapse All Literature Search – RubricCollapse All

PICOT-D Question

11 points

Criteria Description

PICOT-D Question

5. Target

11 points

The PICOT-D question is accurately presented.

4. Acceptable

10.12 points

NA

3. Approaching

9.68 points

The PICOT-D question is presented, but there are minor errors.

2. Insufficient

8.8 points

The PICOT-D question is presented, but there are errors and inaccuracies throughout.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The PICOT-D question is omitted.

APA References for Research Articles

11 points

Criteria Description

APA style; includes the GCU permalink or working link used to access the article.

5. Target

11 points

APA style is used in the reference formatting. There are no errors. The links provide access to the articles.

4. Acceptable

10.12 points

APA style is used in the reference formatting. There minor errors. The links provide access to the articles.

3. Approaching

9.68 points

APA style is used in the reference formatting, but there some errors and inaccuracies. The links provide access to the articles.

2. Insufficient

8.8 points

APA style is used in the reference formatting, but there are major errors or omissions. One or two links do not provide access to the articles.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

APA style is not used in the reference formatting. Multiple links are missing or do not work.

Identification and Evaluation of Primary Quantitative Research for PICOT-D Question and Intervention

82.5 points

Criteria Description

Articles meet criteria required for primary quantitative research supporting the PICOT-D question and intervention. Articles are evaluated using criteria in the literature evaluation table. Includes primary quantitative research from clinical practice guidelines, if applicable. If applicable, clinical practice guidelines are addressed in Table 2.

5. Target

82.5 points

All five articles, including articles from the clinical practice guidelines, if applicable, meet the criteria required for a primary quantitative research article. The evaluation of each article is concise, informative, and accurate. How each article and applicable clinical practice guidelines support the proposed the PICOT-D question or intervention is clearly explained. At least two articles provide direct support for the intervention.

4. Acceptable

75.9 points

All five articles, including articles from the clinical practice guidelines, if applicable, meet the criteria required for a primary quantitative research article. The evaluation of each article is complete, but there are some minor errors or inaccuracies. How each article and applicable clinical practice guidelines support the proposed the PICOT-D question or intervention is adequately explained. At least two articles provide adequate support for the intervention. Some detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.

3. Approaching

72.6 points

Four articles, including articles from the clinical practice guidelines, if applicable, meet the criteria required for a primary research article. The evaluation of each of the four articles is complete, but a few key aspects are inaccurate or incorrect. General explanations for how each article and applicable clinical practice guidelines support the PICOT-D question or intervention are presented. Only one article provides sufficient support for the intervention.

2. Insufficient

66 points

Three articles, including articles from the clinical practice guidelines, if applicable, meet the criteria required for a primary research article. The evaluation of the articles contains numerous inaccuracies. It is unclear how the research articles, and clinical practice guidelines support the intervention.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Only two articles meet the criteria required for a primary research article. The evaluation of each of the four articles is incomplete. Clinical guidelines are used, but the primary quantitative research is omitted.

Mechanics of Writing

5.5 points

Criteria Description

Includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use.

5. Target

5.5 points

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. Acceptable

5.06 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. Approaching

4.84 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. Insufficient

4.4 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 used.