Assessment 1: Written Assessment 1
Assessment 1: Written Assessment 1
Due: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 23:00Due: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 23:00
Ungraded, 100 Possible Points100Points Possible
Attempt
In Progress
NEXT UP: Submit assignment
Add comment
Unlimited Attempts Allowed
Available until 22 Mar 2024 23:00Available until 22 Mar 2024 23:00
Details
Assessment 1Written Assessment 1
Assessment Type Written Assignment
Description
In this assessment students will review and critique a systematic literature review. Students will be provided with a published systematic literature review that must be referenced in the assignment submission. The assignment will consist of short answer questions that will be used to critique the systematic review. The questions are adapted from the JBI Checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses (JBI 2020). Further instructions and an assessment template (containing the questions) will be provided on the Canvas site under Assignments.
Weighting 35%
Compulsory Requirements Submit assessment item - Must submit this assessment to pass the course.
Length 1500 words (+/- 10% for allowance).
Due Date Monday 26 February 2024, 11.00pm (AEDT)
Submission Method Via Canvas
Assessment Criteria Located on Canvas
Return Method Via Canvas
Feedback Provided Via Canvas 15 University working days after submission.
Opportunity to Reattempt Students WILL NOT be given the opportunity to reattempt this assessment.
Assessment Documentation
Assessment 1 Template.docxDownload Assessment 1 Template.docxJF Rubric Ass 1 NURS6900.docxDownload JF Rubric Ass 1 NURS6900.docx*information only
View Rubric
Assessment 1: Written Assessment 1 Rubric
Assessment 1: Written Assessment 1 Rubric
Criteria Ratings Points
Review Question and Objectives
view longer description 7.5 to >6.3 pts
High Distinction (HD)
The review question is clearly and explicitly stated. There is a comprehensive explanation of the purpose, objective, and/or question. The explanation demonstrates a deep understanding of the relevance and significance of the research.
6.3 to >5.5 pts
Distinction (D)
The review question is clearly stated with a detailed explanation. The explanation provides a solid understanding of the purpose, objective, and/or question.
5.5 to >4.7 pts
Credit (C)
The review question is clearly stated with an explanation, but the depth of understanding may be lacking. There is a basic grasp of the purpose, objective, and/or question.
4.7 to >3.6 pts
Pass (P)
The review question is stated with an attempt at explanation. There is an effort to understand the purpose, objective, and/or question, but it may be rudimentary.
3.6 to >0 pts
Fail (F)
The answer is unclear, missing, or not attempted, indicating a lack of understanding of the review question and objectives. / 7.5 pts
Inclusion Criteria
view longer description 7.5 to >6.3 pts
High Distinction (HD)
The inclusion criteria are clearly identified with a thorough explanation of their appropriateness. The explanation demonstrates a deep understanding of why these criteria are crucial for the review.
6.3 to >5.5 pts
Distinction (D)
The inclusion criteria are identified with a detailed explanation of their appropriateness. The explanation provides a solid understanding of the importance of these criteria.
5.5 to >4.7 pts
Credit (C)
The inclusion criteria are identified with an explanation, but the depth of understanding may be lacking. There is a basic grasp of why these criteria are important.
4.7 to >3.6 pts
Pass (P)
The inclusion criteria are identified with an attempt at explanation. There is an effort to understand the importance of these criteria, but it may be rudimentary.
3.6 to >0 pts
Fail (F)
The answer is unclear, missing, or not attempted, indicating a lack of understanding of the inclusion criteria. / 7.5 pts
Search Strategy
view longer description 7.5 to >6.3 pts
High Distinction (HD)
The search strategy is clearly identified with a comprehensive explanation of its appropriateness. The explanation demonstrates a deep understanding of why this strategy is essential for a systematic review.
6.3 to >5.5 pts
Distinction (D)
The search strategy is identified with a detailed explanation of its appropriateness. The explanation provides a solid understanding of the importance of this strategy.
5.5 to >4.7 pts
Credit (C)
The search strategy is identified with an explanation, but the depth of understanding may be lacking. There is a basic grasp of why this strategy is important.
4.7 to >3.6 pts
Pass (P)
The search strategy is identified with an attempt at explanation. There is an effort to understand the importance of this strategy, but it may be rudimentary.
3.6 to >0 pts
Fail (F)
The answer is unclear, missing, or not attempted, indicating a lack of understanding of the search strategy. / 7.5 pts
Sources and Resources for Article Search
view longer description 7.5 to >6.3 pts
High Distinction (HD)
The sources and resources for the article search are clearly identified with a thorough explanation of their adequacy. The explanation demonstrates a deep understanding of why these sources and resources are appropriate.
6.3 to >5.5 pts
Distinction (D)
The sources and resources for the article search are identified with a detailed explanation of their adequacy. The explanation provides a solid understanding of the importance of these sources and resources.
5.5 to >4.7 pts
Credit (C)
The sources and resources for the article search are identified with an explanation, but the depth of understanding may be lacking. There is a basic grasp of why these sources and resources are important.
4.7 to >3.6 pts
Pass (P)
The sources and resources for the article search are identified with an attempt at explanation. There is an effort to understand the importance of these sources and resources, but it may be rudimentary.
3.6 to >0 pts
Fail (F)
The answer is unclear, missing, or not attempted, indicating a lack of understanding of the sources and resources for the article search. / 7.5 pts
Criteria for Appraising Studies
view longer description 7.5 to >6.3 pts
High Distinction (HD)
The criteria for appraising studies are clearly identified with a comprehensive explanation of their appropriateness. The explanation demonstrates a deep understanding of why these criteria are crucial for evaluating the quality of studies.
6.3 to >5.5 pts
Distinction (D)
The criteria for appraising studies are identified with a detailed explanation of their appropriateness. The explanation provides a solid understanding of the importance of these criteria.
5.5 to >4.7 pts
Credit (C)
The criteria for appraising studies are identified with an explanation, but the depth of understanding may be lacking. There is a basic grasp of why these criteria are important.
4.7 to >3.6 pts
Pass (P)
The criteria for appraising studies are identified with an attempt at explanation. There is an effort to understand the importance of these criteria, but it may be rudimentary.
3.6 to >0 pts
Fail (F)
The answer is unclear, missing, or not attempted, indicating a lack of understanding of the criteria for appraising studies. / 7.5 pts
Independent Critical Appraisal
view longer description 7.5 to >6.3 pts
High Distinction (HD)
The independent critical appraisal is clearly identified with a thorough explanation of the importance of having multiple reviewers. The explanation demonstrates a deep understanding of why independent appraisals are crucial for reliability.
6.3 to >5.5 pts
Distinction (D)
The independent critical appraisal is identified with a detailed explanation of the importance. The explanation provides a solid understanding of why independent appraisals enhance the reliability of the review.
5.5 to >4.7 pts
Credit (C)
The independent critical appraisal is identified with an explanation, but the depth of understanding may be lacking. There is a basic grasp of why independent appraisals are important.
4.7 to >3.6 pts
Pass (P)
The independent critical appraisal is identified with an attempt at explanation. There is an effort to understand the importance of independent appraisals, but it may be rudimentary.
3.6 to >0 pts
Fail (F)
The answer is unclear, missing, or not attempted, indicating a lack of understanding of independent critical appraisal. / 7.5 pts
Data Extraction Methods
view longer description 7.5 to >6.3 pts
High Distinction (HD)
The data extraction methods are clearly explained with comprehensive details on error minimization methods and appropriateness. The explanation demonstrates a deep understanding of how to ensure accuracy in data extraction.
6.3 to >5.5 pts
Distinction (D)
The data extraction methods are explained with detailed details on error minimization methods and appropriateness. The explanation provides a solid understanding of how to minimize errors in data extraction.
5.5 to >4.7 pts
Credit (C)
The data extraction methods are explained with details, but the depth of understanding may be lacking. There is a basic grasp of how to minimize errors in data extraction.
4.7 to >3.6 pts
Pass (P)
The data extraction methods are explained with an attempt at details. There is an effort to understand how to minimize errors in data extraction, but it may be rudimentary.
3.6 to >0 pts
Fail (F)
The answer is unclear, missing, or not attempted, indicating a lack of understanding of data extraction methods. / 7.5 pts
Methods for Combining Studies
view longer description 7.5 to >6.3 pts
High Distinction (HD)
A comprehensive explanation of the appropriateness of methods for combining studies. The explanation demonstrates a deep understanding of how to synthesize study findings effectively.
6.3 to >5.5 pts
Distinction (D)
A detailed explanation of the appropriateness of methods for combining studies. The explanation provides a solid understanding of how to synthesize study findings effectively.
5.5 to >4.7 pts
Credit (C)
Explanation with some depth on the appropriateness of methods for combining studies. There is a basic grasp of how to synthesize study findings effectively.
4.7 to >3.6 pts
Pass (P)
Explanation with some depth on the appropriateness of methods for combining studies. There is a basic grasp of how to synthesize study findings effectively.
3.6 to >0 pts
Fail (F)
The answer is unclear, missing, or not attempted, indicating a lack of understanding of methods for combining studies. / 7.5 pts
Assessment of Publication Bias
view longer description 7.5 to >6.3 pts
High Distinction (HD)
Clearly explained with a comprehensive rationale for the assessment of publication bias. The explanation demonstrates a deep understanding of why assessing publication bias is crucial.
6.3 to >5.5 pts
Distinction (D)
Explained with a detailed rationale for the assessment of publication bias. The explanation provides a solid understanding of why assessing publication bias is important.
5.5 to >4.7 pts
Credit (C)
Explained with a rationale, but the depth of understanding may be lacking. There is a basic grasp of why assessing publication bias is important.
4.7 to >3.6 pts
Pass (P)
Explained with an attempt at a rationale. There is an effort to understand why assessing publication bias is important, but it may be rudimentary.
3.6 to >0 pts
Fail (F)
The answer is unclear, missing, or not attempted, indicating a lack of understanding of the assessment of publication bias. / 7.5 pts
Support for Recommendations
view longer description 7.5 to >6.3 pts
High Distinction (HD)
Exceptional explanation of how data supports recommendations. The explanation demonstrates a deep understanding of how the reported data directly supports the recommendations.
6.3 to >5.5 pts
Distinction (D)
Detailed explanation of how data supports recommendations. The explanation provides a solid understanding of the connection between the reported data and recommendations.
5.5 to >4.7 pts
Credit (C)
Explanation with some depth on how data supports recommendations. There is a basic grasp of the connection between the reported data and recommendations.
4.7 to >3.6 pts
Pass (P)
Explanation with an attempt at depth on how data supports recommendations. There is an effort to understand the connection between the reported data and recommendations, but it may be rudimentary.
3.6 to >0 pts
Fail (F)
The answer is unclear, missing, or not attempted, indicating a lack of understanding of how data supports recommendations. / 7.5 pts
Directives for New Research
view longer description 7.5 to >6.3 pts
High Distinction (HD)
Clearly identified with a comprehensive rationale for the appropriateness of directives for new research. The explanation demonstrates a deep understanding of why the identified directives are relevant and necessary.
6.3 to >5.5 pts
Distinction (D)
Identified with a detailed rationale for the appropriateness of directives for new research. The explanation provides a solid understanding of why the identified directives are relevant and necessary.
5.5 to >4.7 pts
Credit (C)
Identified with a rationale, but the depth of understanding may be lacking. There is a basic grasp of why the identified directives are relevant and necessary.
4.7 to >3.69 pts
Pass (P)
Identified with an attempt at a rationale. There is an effort to understand why the identified directives are relevant and necessary, but it may be rudimentary.
3.69 to >0 pts
Fail (F)
The answer is unclear, missing, or not attempted, indicating a lack of understanding of directives for new research. / 7.5 pts
Application of Findings to Clinical Practice
view longer description 7.5 to >6.3 pts
High Distinction (HD)
Clearly explained with a comprehensive rationale for the application of findings to clinical practice. The explanation demonstrates a deep understanding of how the findings directly apply to real-world clinical scenarios
6.3 to >5.5 pts
Distinction (D)
Explained with a detailed rationale for the application of findings to clinical practice. The explanation provides a solid understanding of how the findings can be applied in real-world clinical settings.
5.5 to >4.7 pts
Credit (C)
Explained with a rationale, but the depth of understanding may be lacking. There is a basic grasp of how the findings can be applied in real-world clinical settings.
4.7 to >3.6 pts
Pass (P)
Explained with an attempt at a rationale. There is an effort to understand how the findings can be applied in real-world clinical settings, but it may be rudimentary.
3.6 to >0 pts
Fail (F)
The answer is unclear, missing, or not attempted, indicating a lack of understanding of the application of findings to clinical practice. / 7.5 pts
Academic Writing and Expression
view longer description 5 to >4.2 pts
High Distinction (HD)
Outstanding writing Introductory sentence used at the start of paragraphs. Main subject matter is developed within each paragraph. Concluding sentence used at the end of paragraphs. Outstanding spelling, grammar and syntax with no errors. Meets all style requirements including spacing, page numbers, font, headings.
4.2 to >3.7 pts
Distinction (D)
Excellent academic writing skills. Paragraphs are structure correctly. Excellent spelling, grammar and syntax. < 5 minor errors. Meets all style requirements including spacing, page numbers, font, headings.
3.7 to >3.2 pts
Credit (C)
Appropriate academic writing. Paragraphs are mostly structured correctly. Minor errors only in syntax, spelling and grammar. Meets almost all of style requirements including spacing, page numbers, font, headings.
3.2 to >2.4 pts
Pass (P)
Adequate academic writing. Paragraphs are mostly structured correctly. Minor errors only in syntax, spelling and grammar. Meets most of the style requirements including spacing, page numbers, font, headings.
2.4 to >0 pts
Fail (F)
Disorganised and lacks any sense of cohesion or alignment. Language hinders the effective flow of ideas and meaning. Sentences lack structure and are consistently too short or too long. Multiple errors in spelling, grammar and style. Not structured as per requirements in Course Outline. / 5 pts
Literature sources and referencing
view longer description 5 to >4.2 pts
High Distinction (HD)
Sources are contemporary, relevant and from a range of journals and databases. Complies with all APA 7 ed. referencing style requirements. There are no errors in referencing throughout. Sources are contemporary, relevant and from a range of journals and databases.
4.2 to >3.7 pts
Distinction (D)
APA 7 ed. referencing style is consistently accurate. Less than 5 minor referencing errors. Sources are contemporary, relevant and from a narrow range of journals and databases.
3.7 to >3.2 pts
Credit (C)
Complies with referencing style requirements. Some referencing errors in in-text and/or referencing list (5-7). Sources are mostly relevant however there are too few to demonstrate wide reading.
3.2 to >2.4 pts
Pass (P)
Attempts to use APA 7 ed. style. Some errors in in-text and/or referencing list (8-10). Sources are inappropriate and/or absent.
2.4 to >0 pts
Fail (F)
In-text referencing may be absent and/or reference list and contains major errors (>10). 0 marks if absent intext referencing and/or reference list. / 5 pts
Total points: 0
