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.

image1.emf
Evaluation Table

Use this document to complete the evaluation table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

Full APA formatted citation of selected article.

Article #1

Article #2

Article #3

Article #4

Evidence Level *

(I, II, or III)

Conceptual Framework

Describe the theoretical basis for the study (If there is not one mentioned in the article, say that here).**

Design/Method

Describe the design and how the study was carried out (In detail, including inclusion/exclusion criteria).

Sample/Setting

The number and characteristics of

patients, attrition rate, etc.

Major Variables Studied

List and define dependent and independent variables

Measurement

Identify primary statistics used to answer clinical questions (You need to list the actual tests done).

Data Analysis Statistical or

Qualitative findings

(You need to enter the actual numbers determined by the statistical tests or qualitative data).

Findings and Recommendations

General findings and recommendations of the research

Appraisal and Study Quality

Describe the general worth of this research to practice.

What are the strengths and limitations of study?

What are the risks associated with implementation of the suggested practices or processes detailed in the research?

What is the feasibility of use in your practice?

Key findings

Outcomes

General Notes/Comments

* These levels are from the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice: Evidence Level and Quality Guide

· Level I

Experimental, randomized controlled trial (RCT), systematic review RTCs with or without meta-analysis

· Level II

Quasi-experimental studies, systematic review of a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, or quasi-experimental studies only, with or without meta-analysis

· Level III

Nonexperimental, systematic review of RCTs, quasi-experimental with/without meta-analysis, qualitative, qualitative systematic review with/without meta-synthesis

· Level IV

Respected authorities’ opinions, nationally recognized expert committee/consensus panel reports based on scientific evidence

· Level V

Literature reviews, quality improvement, program evaluation, financial evaluation, case reports, nationally recognized expert(s) opinion based on experiential evidence

**Note on Conceptual Framework

· The following information is from Walden academic guides which helps explain conceptual frameworks and the reasons they are used in research. Here is the link https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/conceptualframework

· Researchers create theoretical and conceptual frameworks that include a philosophical and methodological model to help design their work. A formal theory provides context for the outcome of the events conducted in the research. The data collection and analysis are also based on the theoretical and conceptual framework.

· As stated by Grant and Osanloo (2014), “Without a theoretical framework, the structure and vision for a study is unclear, much like a house that cannot be constructed without a blueprint. By contrast, a research plan that contains a theoretical framework allows the dissertation study to be strong and structured with an organized flow from one chapter to the next.”

· Theoretical and conceptual frameworks provide evidence of academic standards and procedure. They also offer an explanation of why the study is pertinent and how the researcher expects to fill the gap in the literature.

· Literature does not always clearly delineate between a theoretical or conceptual framework. With that being said, there are slight differences between the two.

References

The Johns Hopkins Hospital/Johns Hopkins University (n.d.). Johns Hopkins nursing dvidence-based practice: appendix C: evidence level and quality guide. Retrieved October 23, 2019 from https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/evidence-based-practice/_docs/appendix_c_evidence_level_quality_guide.pdf

Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, Selecting, and Integrating a Theoretical Framework in Dissertation Research: Creating the Blueprint for Your” House”. Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 12-26.

Walden University Academic Guides (n.d.). Conceptual & theoretical frameworks overview. Retrieved October 23, 2019 from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/conceptualframework

Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template

© 2018 Laureate Education Inc. 2

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)

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010). Evidence-based practice step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part I. American Journal of Nursing, 110(7), 47–52. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000383935.22721.9c

Fineout-Overhold, E., Melnyk, B.M., Stillwell, S.B., & Williamson, K.M. (2010). Evidence-based practice step-by-step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part II. American Journal of Nursing, 110(7), 47-52

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B., Stillwell, S., & Williamson, K. (2010). Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part III the process of synthesis: Seeing similarities and differences across the body of evidence. American Journal of Nursing, 110(11), 43-51. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000390523.99066.b5

Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Critical appraisal of qualitative evidence. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 15(3), 202–207. doi:10.1177/1078390309338733

THE ASSIGNMENT RUBRIC

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.

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.

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.

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct APA format with no errors.

Practicum Reflective Journal