Overview VT of Matrix Assignment: 

This  assignment will require you to take the PICO, 5 articles and place them in a table for analysis.  You will critique each article and identify the most important parts of the research, analysis, and findings.

Then  you will summarize the articles by grading the research, and identifying gaps in the literature as well as possible interventions (see grading rubric and examples).

This will serve as the foundation for the work you will do in the Project/Practicum courses. As you work with your preceptor and finalize your capstone project, you will continue to build on this material.  This assignment will be graded within 3-4 days of due date,  with feedback provided once all grading has been completed. 

This assignment enables the learners to meet Course SLO #1, 2, 3, 4  

Instructions:

  1. Identify your PICO or research question of interest
  2. Gather 5 research articles on your topic: be sure to save them and submit them along with the matrix;  please make sure they are PDF documents. Do not use clinical guidelines
  3. Review sample matrices and summaries
  4. Use matrix table- one for each article and critique the parts of the article using the rubric
  5. Be sure to identify the evaluation tool used to grade the evidence such as (See below for grading the evidence tools)
  6. Identify where there are issues with the articles and what gaps were not addressed with the research; be prepared this may change the way you look at your topic or may result in a slightly different direction for your area of interest. This is ok- that is what you want to accomplish with this assignment. It will really assist you as you move forward with your project.
  7. For this assignment you will turn in the matrix tables, summary, references and pdf copies of your 5 articles.
  8. Key definitions:
    1. Level of evidence:  the process used to evaluate the level of evidence of your articles- such as Jones Hopkins,  Cincinnati Children’s evaluation etc,
    2. Evaluation tool: use the method and describe how you arrived at the scoring or knowing that the article included all content it needed to- such as CASP;
    3. Instrument: What type of instrument or tool was used in the article?  This could be  a depression screening tool, Nurse satisfaction tool etc.  Describe the instrument- how many questions, reliability- consistency with test-retest, Cronbach Alpha, inter-rater reliablity; validity with content validity, face validity

Files: 

Use this form for your assignment: Article Matrix and Analysis Revised 10.2020-1.docx

Actions

 

Rubric: DNP 816 Rubric for Matrix and Summary 10.2020 Final v2.docx

Actions

 

Sample 1 Matrix_dnp816. Fall 2020 with permission.docx

Actions

 

Sample 2 DNP 816 Matrix Fall 2020 with permission.docx

Actions

 

Sample 3 DNP 816 RL Article Matrix and Analysis Spring 2021 with permission.docx

Actions

* Newly Added 

 

 

Links to critical appraisal tools to evaluate research quality:

Joanna Briggs Institute (joannabriggs.org) Joanna Briggs Institute (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.)

CASP checklists (Links to an external site.)

Mixed Method appraisal checklist McGill:  (Links to an external site.)

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Legend tools- very helpful (Links to an external site.)

Johns Hopkins EBP Models and Tools  (Links to an external site.)

Rubric

DNP 816 Matrix Rubric 10.2020

DNP 816 Matrix Rubric 10.2020

CriteriaRatingsPts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSource information and quality

7.5 pts

Full Marks

All key elements are present: Author credentials listed, article is less than 5 years old, and publication is peer reviewed/ scholarly, article is based on research and relates to the chosen topic of concern; is a primary source

5 pts

Average Marks

Two key elements are present: Author credentials listed, article is less than 5 years old, ad publication is peer reviewed/ scholarly, article is based on research and relates to the chosen topic of concern but is a secondary source

3.5 pts

Low Marks

One key element is listed: Author credentials listed, article is less than 5 years old, ad publication is peer reviewed/ scholarly, the articles only partially relate to the chosen topic of concern or is a secondary source

2 pts

Poor Marks

Missing key elements: Author credentials listed, article is more than 5 years old, and publication is peer reviewed/ scholarly, the article has little or nothing to do with the topic of concern and is a secondary source. The article is not research

7.5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResearch Design and Interventions

7.5 pts

Full Marks

All key elements are present: appropriate research design identified, thorough description of intervention, justification for not using a different research design, longitudinal or prospective, or causal intent. Identifies IV and DV if appropriate

5 pts

Average Marks

Elements are covered but not in enough depth: appropriate research design identified, thorough description of intervention, justification for not using a different research design, longitudinal or prospective, or causal intent. Identifies IV and DV if appropriate

3.5 pts

Low Marks

Missing elements in this category- research design or intervention: appropriate research design identified, thorough description of intervention, justification for not using a different research design, longitudinal or prospective, or causal intent. Identifies IV and DV if appropriate

2 pts

Poor Marks

Missing key elements: does not identify the correct research design, no description of the intervention (if present), does not identify IV or DV (if appropriate)

7.5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLevel of Evidence, Model and Evaluation Tool

7.5 pts

Full Marks

Key elements addressed: What was the strength of the evidence in support of your research topic- what model was used to grade the evidence? What evaluation tool was used to assess the evidence?

5 pts

Average Marks

Key elements are not well described but are present: Strength of evidence, model used to grade the evidence and evaluation tool used.

3.5 pts

Low Marks

Missing elements in this category: Includes some information but it missing content related to grading the evidence, model use or evaluation tool.

2 pts

Poor Marks

Does not include the level of evidence and model used to grade it. Does not use an evaluation tool to assess design

7.5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSample and Data Collection Procedure

7.5 pts

Full Marks

Key elements addressed: was population identified, were sample procedures described? What type sampling plan as used? How were people recruited? Was there a power analysis? Was sample size large enough? All elements thoroughly addressed.

5 pts

Average Marks

Key elements are not well described but are present: was population identified, were sample procedures described? What type sampling plan as used? How were people recruited? Was there a power analysis? Was sample size large enough?

3.5 pts

Low Marks

Missing or superficial information: was population identified, were sample procedures described? What type sampling plan as used? How were people recruited? Was there a power analysis? Was sample size large enough?

2 pts

Poor Marks

Does not include a discussion of the participants, how they were recruited, power analysis information, sample size adequacy. Limited information included.

7.5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInstruments- Reliability and Validity

7.5 pts

Full Marks

Key Elements addressed: includes a complete and thorough discussion of the instruments used, types of questions, reliability- (Cronbach alpha) and validity, LOM

5 pts

Average Marks

Key elements are not well described but are present: includes some discussion of the instruments used, types of questions, reliability- (Cronbach alpha) and validity, LOM

3.5 pts

Low Marks

Key elements are missing or are very superficial: includes a complete discussion of the instruments used, types of questions, reliability (Cronbach alpha) and validity, LOM

2 pts

Poor Marks

Does not include information concerning reliability or validity of instruments.

7.5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeData Analysis

Statistics, LOM, findings, results

7.5 pts

Full Marks

Key elements addressed thoroughly: Was level of measurement identified? Were inferential stats used? Were tests parametric or nonparametric- why used? Were there significant results? Was there an appropriate amount of statistics info reported? Were all important results discussed?

5 pts

Average Marks

Key elements are not well described but are present: Was level of measurement identified? Were inferential stats used? Were tests parametric or nonparametric- why used? Were there significant results? Was there an appropriate amount of statistics info reported? Were all important results discussed?

3.5 pts

Low Marks

Key elements are missing or very superficial discussion: Was level of measurement identified? Were inferential stats used? Were tests parametric or nonparametric- why used? Were there significant results? Was there an appropriate amount of statistics info reported? Were all important results discussed?

2 pts

Poor Marks

Missing information from discussion of data analysis: does not identify statistics used, no LOM, findings or results

7.5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscussion: Significance of findings, Reliability and Validity of study, Limitations

7.5 pts

Full Marks

Key elements addressed thoroughly: Was interpretation appropriate? Were limitations identified? Addressed study implications for clinical practice, did they make specific recommendations or miss important implications? Did research address clinical significance? Did they address generalizability?

5 pts

Average Marks

Key elements are not well described but are present: interpretation, limitations, implications for clinical practice, clinical significance, generalizability

3.5 pts

Low Marks

Key elements superficial : interpretation, limitations, implications for clinical practice, clinical significance, generalizability

2 pts

Poor Marks

Missing information regarding: interpretation, limitations, implications for clinical practice, clinical significance, generalizability

7.5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis, Helpful and Reliable

7.5 pts

Full Marks

Key elements answered thoughtfully: is the information biased or objective, useful and reliable or not? How does the source compare with other reviewed articles? How is this information similar or different from other articles you have read? Was the information helpful? How?

5 pts

Average Marks

Key elements are not well described but are present: is the information biased or objective, useful and reliable or not? How does the source compare with other reviewed articles? How is this information similar or different from other articles you have read? Was the information helpful? How?

3.5 pts

Low Marks

Key elements are present but superficial: is the information biased or objective, useful and reliable or not? How does the source compare with other reviewed articles? How is this information similar or different from other articles you have read? Was the information helpful? How?

2 pts

Poor Marks

Missing key elements: is the information biased or objective, useful and reliable or not? How does the source compare with other reviewed articles? How is this information similar or different from other articles you have read? Was the information helpful? How?

7.5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummary- Overall Synthesis of all 5 Articles

20 pts

Full Marks

Key Elements: Thorough and complete discussion about the quality of the articles (level of evidence), overall findings, what research still needs to be done on your topic, identifies gaps in care, addresses health promotion pertinent for area, analyzes interventions for populations. Did the article change your thinking about your research topic?

14 pts

Average Marks

Discusses each article individually, with some evaluation of quality and needed research. Did the article change your thinking about your research topic? Addresses a gap in care of population, few health promotion or prevention issues, few interventions for population

7.5 pts

Low Marks

Includes most of the articles, spotty evaluation of the articles, no research identified, limited discussion if view changed on the topic. Limited analysis/summary with focus on gaps identified, health prevention/promotion or interventions

0 pts

No Marks

Does not include the summary of all 5 articles, no evaluation of quality of the articles, no needed research identified, limited discussion addressing gaps in care, health promotion/prevention or interventions. Did not address if view on topic has changed

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting quality

10 pts

Full Marks

No grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. Succinct

7.5 pts

Average Marks

Almost no grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. Nearly succinct

5 pts

Low Marks

A few grammatical spelling or punctuation errors.

0 pts

No Marks

Many grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. Too brief or not succinct

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA Format

10 pts

Full Marks

Source is consistently documented in APA format

7.5 pts

Average Marks

Source is accurately documented but a few minor errors noted

5 pts

Low Marks

Multiple errors in accuracy and APA format.

0 pts

No Marks

Sources are neither accurately documented nor in APA Format

10 pts

Total Points: 100

Get 15% discount on your first order with us
Use the following coupon
FIRST15

Order Now
CategoryUncategorized
Write a comment:

Your email address will not be published.

Hi there! Click one of our representatives below and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

Chat with us on WhatsApp