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
|
|
|
|
|
© 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