Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 3: Critical Appraisal of Research
Realtors rely on detailed property appraisals—conducted using appraisal tools—to assign market values to houses and other properties. These values are then presented to buyers and sellers to set prices and initiate offers.
Research appraisal is not that different. The critical appraisal process utilizes formal appraisal tools to assess the results of research to determine value to the context at hand. Evidence-based practitioners often present these findings to make the case for specific courses of action.
In this Assignment, you will use an appraisal tool to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.
To Prepare:
- Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and the four systematic reviews (or other filtered high- level evidence) you selected in Module 3.
- Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3.
- Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template provided in the Resources.
The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)
Part 3A: Critical Appraisal of Research
Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected by completing the Evaluation Table within the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Choose a total of four peer- reviewed articles that you selected related to your clinical topic of interest in Module 2 and Module 3.
Note: You can choose any combination of articles from Modules 2 and 3 for your Critical Appraisal. For example, you may choose two unfiltered research articles from Module 2 and two filtered research articles (systematic reviews) from Module 3 or one article from Module 2 and three articles from Module 3. You can choose any combination of articles from the prior Module Assignments as long as both modules and types of studies are represented.
Part 3B: Critical Appraisal of Research
Based on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.
By Day 7 of Week 7
Submit Part 3A and 3B of your Evidence-Based Project.
Submission and Grading Information
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:
- Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK7Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
- Click the Week 7 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
- Click the Week 7 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
- Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK7Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
- If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
- Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 7 Assignment Rubric
Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity
To check your Assignment Draft for Authenticity
Submit your Week 7 Assignment Draft and review the originality report
Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 7
To participate in this Assignment:
Week 7 Assignment
Module 4: Critical Appraisal, Evaluation/Summary, and Synthesis of Evidence (Weeks 6-7)
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Critical Appraisal [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Accessible player
| Due By | Assignment |
| Week 6, Days 1-4 | Read the Learning Resources. Begin to compose Part A of your Assignment.. |
| Week 6, Days 5-7 | Continue to compose Part B of your Assignment. Begin to compose Part B of your Assignment. |
| Week 7, Days 1-6 | Continue to compose Part A and B of your Assignment. |
| Week 7, Day 7 | Deadline to submit Part A and B of your Assignment. |
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Evaluate peer-reviewed articles using critical appraisal tools
- Analyze best practices based on critical appraisal of evidence-based research
Learning Resources
Required Readings
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.
- Chapter 5, “Critically Appraising Quantitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making” (pp. 124–188)
- Chapter 6, “Critically Appraising Qualitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making” (pp. 189–218)
Document: Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template (Word document)
Required Media
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Appraising the Research [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Accessible player
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Interpreting Statistics [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Accessible player
6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |||
| Part 3A: Critical Appraisal of Research Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected and analyzed by completing the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Be sure to include: · An Evaluation Table | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
The critical appraisal accurately and clearly provides a detailed evaluation table. The responses provide a detailed, specific, and accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
The critical appraisal accurately provides an evaluation table. The responses provide an accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected with some specificity. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate or vague. The responses provide an inaccurate or vague evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate and vague or is missing. |
||
| Part 3B: Evidence-Based Best Practices Based on your appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research. | 32 (32%) – 35 (35%)
The responses accurately and clearly suggest a detailed best practice that is fully aligned to the research reviewed. The responses accurately and clearly explain in detail the best practice, with sufficient justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. The response fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the responses provided. Accurate, complete, and full APA citations are provided for the research reviewed. |
28 (28%) – 31 (31%)
The responses accurately suggest a best practice that is adequately aligned to the research reviewed. The responses accurately explain the best practice, with adequately justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed on the best practice explained. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the responses provided. Accurate and complete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed. |
25 (25%) – 27 (27%)
The responses inaccurately or vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed. The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate or vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide a vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided. Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed. |
0 (0%) – 24 (24%)
The responses inaccurately and vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed or are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate and vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field, or are missing. A vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained is provided or is missing. The response fails to integrate any resources to support the responses provided. Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed or is missing. |
||
| Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria. | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive. |
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. |
||
| 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 (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) 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 (one or two) APA format errors. |
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) APA format errors. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) APA format errors. |
||
| Total Points: 100 | ||||||
Order with us!
Solution
Evidence-Based Project Part 3B: Critical Appraisal of Research
The critical appraisal of research has revealed that cognitive training effectively improves cognitive function in persons having mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Cognitive training can also improve cognitive performance in older patients since they have a high risk of cognitive decline. MCI often precedes dementia. It is characterized by mainly normal functions in spite of objective evidence of cognitive decline. MCI is a major risk factor for dementia, falls, and high healthcare costs. The risk increases relatively with impaired cognitive domains and severity of symptoms. Cognitive training is the best practice that emerges from the research analysis. Butler et al. (2018) revealed that cognitive training improved cognitive performance in healthy elderly persons. Therefore, it the training be incorporated in the preventative care of older adults to lower the risk of declined cognitive function, which is common in advanced age.
Cognitive training can be implemented using technology computerized cognitive training (CCT). Hill et al. (2017) demonstrated CCT as an effective and safe approach for promoting cognitive function in the elderly. Besides, CCT value has been established in improving cognition and psychosocial functioning, including alleviating depression and neuropsychiatric symptoms and improving the quality of life of persons individuals MCI. Furthermore, Weng et al.’s (2019) study show that cognitive training significantly impacts the domains of executive function, memory, and performance of ADLs. The impact on these domains can be sustained for at least three months. It can convey to other untrained areas, including executive function. Executive function also enhances the ability to carry out ADLs. The study justifies cognitive training as a practical approach to enhance working memory in elderly persons having MCI. Giovagnoli et al. (2017) further show that cognitive training is useful in increasing initiative and stabilizing memory in persons with mild-moderate AD.
References
Butler, M., McCreedy, E., Nelson, V. A., Desai, P., Ratner, E., Fink, H. A., … & Kane, R. L. (2018). Does cognitive training prevent cognitive decline? A systematic review. Annals of internal medicine, 168(1), 63-68. https://doi.org/10.7326/M17-1531
Giovagnoli, A. R., Manfredi, V., Parente, A., Schifano, L., Oliveri, S., & Avanzini, G. (2017). Cognitive training in Alzheimer’s disease: a controlled randomized study. Neurological Sciences, 38(8), 1485-1493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-017-3003-9
Hill, N. T., Mowszowski, L., Naismith, S. L., Chadwick, V. L., Valenzuela, M., & Lampit, A. (2017). Computerized cognitive training in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 174(4), 329-340. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16030360
Weng, W., Liang, J., Xue, J., Zhu, T., Jiang, Y., Wang, J., & Chen, S. (2019). The transfer effects of cognitive training on working memory among Chinese older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 11, 212. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2019.00212