cid:D7D4B297-EEAE-4174-AD01-F87097282051@canyon.com

Literature Evaluation Table

Student Name:

Change Topic (2-3 sentences):

Criteria

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

Article 4

Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and

Permalink or Working Link to Access Article

Article Title and Year Published

Research Questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative)

Purposes/Aim of Study

Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)

Setting/Sample

Methods: Intervention/Instruments

Analysis

Key Findings

Recommendations

Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP/Capstone Project

Criteria

Article 5

Article 6

Article 7

Article 8

Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and

Permalink or Working Link to Access Article

Article Title and Year Published

Research Questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative)

Purposes/Aim of Study

Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)

Setting/Sample

Methods: Intervention/Instruments

Analysis

Key Findings

Recommendations

Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP/Capstone

© 2015. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

© 2017. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Rubric reflective journal

Professional Capstone and Practicum Reflective Journal - Rubric

Collapse All Professional Capstone And Practicum Reflective Journal - RubricCollapse All

New Practice Approaches

0 points

Criteria Description

New Practice Approaches

5. 5: Excellent

0 points

New practice approaches are present, complete, and incorporate additional relevant details and critical thinking to engage the reader.

4. 4: Good

0 points

New practice approaches are present and complete. The submission provides the basic information required.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0 points

New practice approaches are present. Some minor details or elements are missing, but the omissions do not impede understanding.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0 points

New practice approaches are present, but they are incomplete or otherwise lacking in required detail.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

New practice approaches are not present.

Interprofessional Collaboration (C4.3)

0 points

Criteria Description

Interprofessional Collaboration (C4.3)

5. 5: Excellent

0 points

Interprofessional collaboration information is present, complete, and incorporates additional relevant details and critical thinking to engage the reader.

4. 4: Good

0 points

Interprofessional collaboration information is present and complete. The submission provides the basic information required.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0 points

Interprofessional collaboration information is present. Some minor details or elements are missing, but the omissions do not impede understanding.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0 points

Interprofessional collaboration information is present, but it is incomplete or otherwise lacking in required detail.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Interprofessional collaboration information is not present.

Health Care Delivery and Clinical Systems

0 points

Criteria Description

Health Care Delivery and Clinical Systems

5. 5: Excellent

0 points

Health care delivery and clinical systems information is present, complete, and incorporates additional relevant details and critical thinking to engage the reader.

4. 4: Good

0 points

Health care delivery and clinical systems information is present and complete. The submission provides the basic information required.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0 points

Health care delivery and clinical systems information is present. Some minor details or elements are missing, but the omissions do not impede understanding.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0 points

Health care delivery and clinical systems information is present, but it is incomplete or otherwise lacking in required detail.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Health care delivery and clinical systems information is not present.

Ethical Considerations In Health Care (C2.3)

0 points

Criteria Description

Ethical Considerations In Health Care (C2.3)

5. 5: Excellent

0 points

Information regarding ethical considerations in health care is present, complete, and incorporates additional relevant details and critical thinking to engage the reader.

4. 4: Good

0 points

Information regarding ethical considerations in health care is present and complete. The submission provides the basic information required.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0 points

Information regarding ethical considerations in health care is present. Some minor details or elements are missing, but the omissions do not impede understanding.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0 points

Information regarding ethical considerations in health care is present, but it is incomplete or otherwise lacking in required detail.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Information regarding ethical considerations in health care is not present.

Practice of Culturally Sensitive Care (C5.3)

0 points

Criteria Description

Practice of Culturally Sensitive Care (C5.3)

5. 5: Excellent

0 points

Information regarding the practice of culturally sensitive care is present and complete, and incorporates additional relevant details and critical thinking to engage the reader.

4. 4: Good

0 points

Information regarding the practice of culturally sensitive care is present and complete. The submission provides the basic information required.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0 points

Information regarding the practice of culturally sensitive care is present. Some minor details or elements are missing, but the omissions do not impede understanding.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0 points

Information regarding the practice of culturally sensitive care is present, but it is incomplete or otherwise lacking in required detail.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Information regarding the practice of culturally sensitive care is not present.

Preservation of Integrity of Human Dignity in the Care of All Patients (C5.4)

0 points

Criteria Description

Preservation of Integrity of Human Dignity in the Care of All Patients (C5.4)

5. 5: Excellent

0 points

Information regarding the preservation of integrity and human dignity in the care of all patients is present and complete, and incorporates additional relevant details and critical thinking to engage the reader.

4. 4: Good

0 points

Information regarding the preservation of integrity and human dignity in the care of all patients is present and complete. The submission provides the basic information required.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0 points

Information regarding the preservation of integrity and human dignity in the care of all patients is present. Some minor details or elements are missing, but the omissions do not impede understanding.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0 points

Information regarding the preservation of integrity and human dignity in the care of all patients is present, but it is incomplete or otherwise lacking in required detail.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Information regarding the preservation of integrity and human dignity in the care of all patients is not present.

Population Health Concerns

0 points

Criteria Description

Population Health Concerns

5. 5: Excellent

0 points

Information regarding population health concerns is present, complete, and incorporates additional relevant details and critical thinking to engage the reader.

4. 4: Good

0 points

Information regarding population health concerns is present and complete. The submission provides the basic information required.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0 points

Information regarding population health concerns is present. Some minor details or elements are missing, but the omissions do not impede understanding.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0 points

Information regarding population health concerns is present, but it is incomplete or otherwise lacking in required detail.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Information regarding population health concerns is not present.

Role of Technology in Improving Health Care Outcomes (C4.1)

0 points

Criteria Description

Role of Technology in Improving Health Care Outcomes (C4.1)

5. 5: Excellent

0 points

Information on the role of technology in improving health care outcomes is present, complete, and incorporates additional relevant details and critical thinking to engage the reader.

4. 4: Good

0 points

Information on the role of technology in improving health care outcomes is present and complete. The submission provides the basic information required.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0 points

Information on the role of technology in improving health care outcomes is present. Some minor details or elements are missing, but the omissions do not impede understanding.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0 points

Information on the role of technology in improving health care outcomes is present, but it is incomplete or otherwise lacking in required detail.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Information on the role of technology in improving health care outcomes is not present.

Health Policy

0 points

Criteria Description

Health Policy

5. 5: Excellent

0 points

Health policy information is present, complete, and incorporates additional relevant details and critical thinking to engage the reader.

4. 4: Good

0 points

Health policy information is present and complete. The submission provides the basic information required.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0 points

Health policy information is present. Some minor details or elements are missing, but the omissions do not impede understanding.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0 points

Health policy information is present, but it is incomplete or otherwise lacking in required detail.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Health policy information is not present.

Leadership and Economic Models

0 points

Criteria Description

Leadership and Economic Models

5. 5: Excellent

0 points

Information on leadership and economic models is present, complete, and incorporates additional relevant details and critical thinking to engage the reader.

4. 4: Good

0 points

Information on leadership and economic models is present and complete. The submission provides the basic information required.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0 points

Information on leadership and economic models is present. Some minor details or elements are missing, but the omissions do not impede understanding.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0 points

Information on leadership and economic models is present, but it is incomplete or otherwise lacking in required detail.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Information on leadership and economic models is not present.

Health Disparities

0 points

Criteria Description

Health Disparities

5. 5: Excellent

0 points

Information on health disparities is present, complete, and incorporates additional relevant details and critical thinking to engage the reader.

4. 4: Good

0 points

Information on health disparities is present and complete. The submission provides the basic information required.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0 points

Information on health disparities is present Some minor details or elements are missing, but the omissions do not impede understanding.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0 points

Information on health disparities is present, but it is incomplete or otherwise lacking in required detail.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Information on health disparities is not present.

Outline of Overall Personal Discovery

0 points

Criteria Description

Outline of Overall Personal Discovery

5. 5: Excellent

0 points

Outline of what student discovered about professional practice, personal strengths and weaknesses that surfaced, additional resources and abilities that could be introduced to a given situation to influence optimal outcomes, and how the student met the competencies aligned to this course is present and complete, and incorporates additional relevant details and critical thinking to engage the reader.

4. 4: Good

0 points

Outline of what student discovered about professional practice, personal strengths and weaknesses that surfaced, additional resources and abilities that could be introduced to a given situation to influence optimal outcomes, and how the student met the competencies aligned to this course is present and complete. The submission provides the basic information required.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0 points

Outline of what student discovered about professional practice, personal strengths and weaknesses that surfaced, additional resources and abilities that could be introduced to a given situation to influence optimal outcomes, and how the student met the competencies aligned to this course is present. Some minor details or elements are missing, but the omissions do not impede understanding.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0 points

Outline of what student discovered about professional practice, personal strengths and weaknesses that surfaced, additional resources and abilities that could be introduced to a given situation to influence optimal outcomes, and how the student met the competencies aligned to this course is present, but it is incomplete or otherwise lacking in required detail.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Outline of what student discovered about professional practice, personal strengths and weaknesses that surfaced, additional resources and abilities that could be introduced to a given situation to influence optimal outcomes, and how the student met the competencies aligned to this course is not present.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

0 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

5. 5: Excellent

0 points

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

4. 4: Good

0 points

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.

3. 3: Satisfactory

0 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

0 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.

Literature Evaluation Table - Rubric

Collapse All Literature Evaluation Table - RubricCollapse All

Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is not included.

Article Title and Year Published

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Article Title and Year Published

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Article title and year published section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Article title and year published section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Article title and year published section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Article title and year published section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Article title and year published section is not included.

Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of Study

5 points

Criteria Description

Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of Study

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is not included.

Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is not included.

Setting or Sample

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Setting or Sample

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Setting or sample section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Setting or sample section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Setting or sample section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Setting or sample section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Setting or sample section is not included.

Methods: Intervention or Instruments

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Methods: Intervention or Instruments

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is not included.

Analysis

5 points

Criteria Description

Analysis

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Analysis section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Analysis section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Analysis section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Analysis section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Analysis section is not included.

Key Findings

5 points

Criteria Description

Key Findings

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Key findings section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Key findings section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Key findings section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Key findings section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Key findings section is not included.

Recommendations

5 points

Criteria Description

Recommendations

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Recommendations section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Recommendations section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Recommendations section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Recommendations section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Recommendations section is not included.

Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or Capstone

5 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or Capstone

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is provided.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is not included.

Presentation

5 points

Criteria Description

Presentation

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

The work is well presented and includes all required elements. The overall appearance is neat and professional.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor flaws or missing elements.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

The overall appearance is general, and major elements are missing.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

The work is not neat and includes minor flaws or omissions of required elements.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

The piece is not neat or organized, and it does not include all required elements.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

5 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. 4: Good

4.45 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. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 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. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 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. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.

Documentation of Sources

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Sources are not documented.

Total 50 points

Get help from top-rated tutors in any subject.

Efficiently complete your homework and academic assignments by getting help from the experts at homeworkarchive.com