The process of synthesis Discussion

The process of synthesis Discussion

The process of synthesis Discussion

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 appraisal tools to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.

To Prepare:

Review the Resources and consider the importance of critically appraising research evidence.
Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3.
Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tools document provided in the Resources.
The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)

Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected and analyzed by completing the Critical Appraisal Tools document. Be sure to include:

An evaluation table
A levels of evidence table
An outcomes synthesis table

Part 4B: 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.

The process of synthesis Discussion

Resources:

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)

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. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1022.62&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010a). 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. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/Fulltext/2010/07000/Evidence_Based_Practice_Step_by_Step__Critical.26.aspx

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010b). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part II: Digging deeper—examining the “keeper” studies. American Journal of Nursing, 110(9), 41–48. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000388264.49427.f9. Retrieved from https://www.nursingcenter.com/nursingcenter_redesign/media/EBP/AJNseries/Critical2.pdf

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010c). Evidence-based practice, step by step: 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. Retrieved from

https://www.nursingcenter.com/nursingcenter_redesign/media/EBP/AJNseries/Critical3.pdf

ical2.pdf

The process of synthesis Discussion

Rubric:

Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected and analyzed by completing the Critical Appraisal Tools document. Be sure to include:

· An evaluation table
· A levels of evidence table
· An outcomes synthesis table–
Levels of Achievement:Excellent 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.
The critical appraisal accurately clearly provides a detailed levels of evidence table. The levels of evidence are accurate and fully aligned to the peer-reviewed articles selected.
The critical appraisal accurately and clearly provides a detailed outcomes synthesis table. The outcomes synthesis accurately describes in detail the relevance of the peer-reviewed articles selected and is fully aligned to each of the peer-reviewed articles.Good 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.
The critical appraisal accurately provides a levels of evidence table. The levels of evidence are accurate and are adequately aligned to the peer-reviewed articles selected.
The critical appraisal accurately provides an outcomes synthesis table. The outcomes synthesis accurately describes the relevance of the peer-reviewed articles selected and is adequately aligned to each of the peer-reviewed articles.Fair 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.
The critical appraisal provides an inaccurate or vague levels of evidence table. The levels of evidence inaccurately or vaguely align to the peer-reviewed articles selected.
The critical appraisal provides an inaccurate or vague outcomes synthesis table. The outcomes synthesis inaccurately or vaguely describes the relevance of the peer-reviewed articles and is inaccurately or vaguely aligned to each of the peer-reviewed articles.Poor 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate and vague or is missing. The process of synthesis Discussion
The critical appraisal provides an inaccurate and vague levels of evidence table or it is missing.
The critical appraisal provides an inaccurate and vague outcomes synthesis table or it is missing.Feedback:

Part 4B: 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.–
Levels of Achievement:Excellent 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.Good 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.Fair 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.Poor 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.Feedback:

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.–
Levels of Achievement:Excellent 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.Good 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.Fair 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.Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. The process of synthesis Discussion
No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.–
Levels of Achievement:Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.Feedback:

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.–
Levels of Achievement:Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors.Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (one or two) APA format errors.Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains several (three or four) APA format errors.Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)