|
A (100-90) |
B (89-80) |
C (79-70) |
F (< 69) |
| Introduction
(5 points) |
The topic is introduced, and the groundwork is laid as to the direction of the report. |
Readers are aware of the overall problem, challenge, or topic that is to be examined. |
The topic is not introduced, and the groundwork is not laid as to the direction of the paper. |
Does not adequately convey introduce the topic. Does not describe subtopics to be reviewed. Lacks adequate theses statement |
| Literature Search
(20 points) |
Demonstrates a sophisticated critique of the sources reviewed; shows a deep understanding of the breadth of the subject. |
Demonstrates an accomplished critique of the sources reviewed. |
Demonstrates a less than acceptable critique of the sources reviewed. Inappropriate use of search terms. |
Demonstrates unacceptable critique of the sources reviewed. Inappropriate use of search terms.
Inappropriate use of search sites (e.g. Goggle, Yahoo vs. PubMed, CINAHL). |
| Determination of Level of Evidence
(25 points) |
Accurately determined the appropriate level of evidence using the Johns Hopkins Research Evidence Appraisal tool. |
Identified the level, however the one or two of the elements related to independent variable, control group, or random assignment was not appropriately identified. |
Level of evidence misidentified completely, however an attempt was made to justify the level’s selection. |
Complete misidentification of level of evidence and justification for level. |
| Quality of Evidence
(25 points) |
Accurately determined the appropriate quality of evidence using the Johns Hopkins Research Evidence Appraisal tool. At least 90% of the component questions were accurately identified and answered with the appropriate “yes”, “no”, or “NA”. |
Determined the appropriate quality of evidence using the Johns Hopkins Research Evidence Appraisal tool. At least 80% of the component questions were accurately identified and answered with the appropriate “yes”, “no”, or “NA”. |
Determined the appropriate quality of evidence using the Johns Hopkins Research Evidence Appraisal tool. At least 70% of the component questions were accurately identified and answered with the appropriate “yes”, “no”, or “NA”. |
Determined the appropriate quality of evidence using the Johns Hopkins Research Evidence Appraisal tool. Less than 69% of the component questions were accurately identified and answered with the appropriate “yes”, “no”, or “NA”. |
| Summary
(5 points) |
The summary is well written, insightful and summarizes all the relevant sections of the paper. |
The summary section includes some discussion related to each section of the critique, leveling and quality of the research article. |
The summary has elements of the relevant section; however, the flow and connection of each section lack a cohesive writing approach. |
The summary is completely unfocused and lacks continuity for supporting the proposed level and quality of the research article. |
| APA and Grammar
(10 points) |
Uses APA format accurately and consistently.
Sentences are clear, concise, and direct; tone is appropriate.
Grammatical skills are strong with almost no errors per page. Correct use of APA format per 6th edition, and including:
Clear introduction and conclusion, overviewing and reviewing paper’s main topics
Use of headings according to APA
Appropriately formatted in-text citations and reference page
Appropriately formatted title page. |
Uses APA format with no more than 3 minor violations.
Sentences are generally clear, concise, and direct; tone is appropriate. Grammatical skills are competent with very few errors per page. Correct use of APA format when assigned. |
Uses APA format with greater than 3 minor violations.
Sentences are occasionally wordy or ambiguous; tone is too informal. Grammatical skills are adequate with few errors per page. Adequate use of APA format when assigned. |
Reflects incomplete knowledge of APA format.
Grammatical errors or spelling & punctuation substantially detract from the paper |
