Boost your Grades with us today! Get your 15% Discount Now!
Assignment: Evidence Synthesis and Tables
Assignment: Evidence Synthesis and Tables
Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is to document sources of research evidence and non-research evidence that address a national practice problem, including the level and quality of each source of research evidence. A synthesis of the evidence is conducted to determine the overall strength and quality of the evidence. The development of an evidence table and synthesis are foundational to inform actions and decisions to improve practice outcomes. Construction of an evidence table and synthesis supports professional formation of the DNP-prepared nurse.
Course Outcomes
This assignment enables the student to meet the following course outcomes.
- Compare and contrast differences and similarities of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method designs. (POs 3, 9)
- Analyze qualitative and quantitative data for the purposes of critical appraisal of evidence. (POs 3, 9)
- Appraise systematic reviews for translation science. (POs 3, 5, 9)
- Evaluate selected statistical methods for the purposes of critical appraisal of evidence. (POs 3, 5, 9)
- Synthesize literature relevant to practice problems. (POs 3, 5, 9)
DUE DATE: Saturday, 11:59 p.m. MT at the end of the Week. The late assignment policy applies to this assignment.
TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS: 300
Preparing The Assignment
Follow these guidelines when completing each component of this assignment. Contact your course faculty if you have questions. It is each student’s responsibility to save and maintain all artifacts.
The assignment will include the following components.
- Title Page
- Introduction
1. Purpose Statement
2. Practice Problem Identification (Synthesis of research study evidence and non-research evidence.)
3. Sources of Research Evidence (identified in Weeks 1, 2, and 3 Discussion as in-text citations) - Implications of the Practice Problem at the National Level and Local Level (Synthesis of research study evidence and non-research evidence.)
1. Significance
2. Prevalence
3. Economic Ramifications - Conduct a synthesis of research evidence and non-research evidence to address:
1. Main points/salient messages that emerge from the sources (Synthesis of 3 research study evidence and 3 non-research evidence.
2. Compare and contrast main points from all sources (Synthesis of 3 research study evidence and 3 non-research evidence.)
3. Objective discussion of facts (Synthesis of 3 research study evidence and 3 non-research evidence.) - Appraisal of the evidence to address the selected practice problem (1–2 paragraphs)
1. Level of Evidence
2. Quality Rating of Evidence
3. Suitability of the Evidence to Address the Practice Problem - Summary Tables of Evidence to Address the Selected Practice Problem Using theJohns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Evidence Summary Tool (Links to an external site.)
1. 1 Qualitative Research Study (identified in Week 1 Discussion)
2. 1 Quantitative Research Study (identified in Week 2 Discussion)
3. 1 Systematic Reviews (identified in Week 3 Discussion) - Conclusion
1. Summation of the impact of the practice problem at the national level and local level
2. Summation of the appraisal of evidence to address the practice problem
3. Summation of the evidence synthesis - References
1. Reference page with complete references for the 3 sources of research evidence and a minimum of 3 sources of non-research evidence - APA Style and Organization
1. APA Standards for scholarly papers
2. Grammar and mechanics
3. Level I Headings are included
All policies related to plagiarism must be observed. This written assignment will be screened for originality by Turnitin.
Introduction
Requirements
1. Includes a focused purpose statement
2. Identifies selected practice problem using a synthesis of research evidence and non-research evidence
3. Identifies sources of research evidence
Implications of the Practice Problem at the National Level and Local Level
Requirements
Using a synthesis of research evidence and non-research evidence.
1. Describes the significance of the practice problem at the national level and local level
2. Discusses the prevalence of the practice problem at the national level and local level
3. Discusses the economic ramifications of the practice problem at the national level and local level
Evidence Synthesis
Requirements
Using a synthesis of research evidence and non-research evidence to
1. Describes scope of the evidence synthesis
2. Discusses the main points / themes across research evidence and non-research evidence
3. Describes the relationship of sources to other selected sources
4. Discusses facts using a synthesis if research and non-research evidence objectively
5. Presents ideas and claims objectively
Evidence Appraisal
Requirements
1. Describes the levels of research evidence
2. Discusses the quality of research evidence
3. Discusses the suitability of the research evidence to address the practice problem
Evidence Summary Tool
Requirements
1. Provides complete summary for the qualitative research study
2. Provides complete summary for the quantitative research study
3. Provides complete summary for the systematic review
Conclusion
Requirements
Using a synthesis of research evidence and non-research evidence to
1. Includes a summation of the impact of the practice problem at the national level
2. Includes a summation of the evidence appraisal
3. Includes a summation of the evidence synthesis
References
Requirements
1.Cites and references for 3 selected sources of research evidence and non-research evidence
APA 7 Style and Organization
Requirements
1. Uses APA 7 standards for scholarly papers
2. Grammar and mechanics are free of errors
3. Uses required evidence summary table
4. Uses required Level I Headings
Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool
Practice Question:
Date:
Article Number |
Author and Date |
Evidence Type |
Sample, Sample Size, Setting |
Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question |
Observable Measures |
Limitations |
Evidence Level, Quality |
|
|
|
· N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
· N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
· N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
· N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
· N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
· N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
· N/A |
|
|
|
|
Attach a reference list with full citations of articles reviewed for this Practice question.
Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix G: Individual Evidence Summary Tool
The Johns Hopkins Hospital/ The Johns Hopkins University
Directions for Use of the Individual Evidence Summary Tool
Purpose
This form is used to document the results of evidence appraisal in preparation for evidence synthesis. The form provides the EBP team with documentation of the sources of evidence used, the year the evidence was published or otherwise communicated, the information gathered from each evidence source that helps the team answer the EBP question, and the level and quality of each source of evidence.
Article Number
Assign a number to each reviewed source of evidence. This organizes the individual evidence summary and provides an easy way to reference articles.
Author and Date
Indicate the last name of the first author or the evidence source and the publication/communication date. List both author/evidence source and date.
Evidence Type
Indicate the type of evidence reviewed (for example: RCT, meta-analysis, mixed methods, quaLitative, systematic review, case study, narrative literature review).
Sample, Sample Size, and Setting
Provide a quick view of the population, number of participants, and study location.
Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
Although the reviewer may find many points of interest, list only findings that directly apply to the EBP question.
Observable Measures
QuaNtitative measures or variables are used to answer a research question, test a hypothesis, describe characteristics, or determine the effect, impact, or influence. QuaLitative evidence uses cases, context, opinions, experiences, and thoughts to represent the phenomenon of study.
Limitations
Include information that may or may not be within the text of the article regarding drawbacks of the piece of evidence. The evidence may list limitations, or it may be evident to you, as you review the evidence, that an important point is missed or the sample does not apply to the population of interest.
Evidence Level and Quality
Using information from the individual appraisal tools, transfer the evidence level and quality rating into this column.
Assignment: Evidence Synthesis and Tables
Purpose: The purpose of this assignment is to document sources of research evidence that support the evidence-based intervention for the selected practice problem, including the level and quality of each source of research evidence. A synthesis of the evidence is conducted to determine the overall strength and quality of the evidence. The development of an evidence table and synthesis are foundational to inform actions and decisions to improve healthcare outcomes. Construction of an evidence table and synthesis supports the professional formation of the DNP-prepared nurse.
Course Outcomes. This assignment enables the student to meet the following course outcome: CO 3: Develop strategies to lead project planning, implementation, management, and evaluation to promote high-value healthcare. (POs 3, 5, 7)
Instructions: Download the Johns Hopkins Research Evidence Appraisal Tool (Links to an external site.) and the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool (Links to an external site.) located in the Student Resource Center under “Project & Practicum Resources.”
As you incorporate published research study findings into your own writing, you aim for synthesis of the material. Before learning how to write a synthesis, it is important to define this term. At its most basic level, a synthesis involves combining two or more summaries. Synthesis writing is more difficult than it might first appear because this combining must be done in a meaningful way. A synthesis requires critical reading and thinking in order to compare different material, highlighting similarities, differences, and connections. When practicing scholar synthesizes successfully, they present new ideas based on interpretations of published research evidence. Conceptually, it can be helpful to think about synthesis existing at both the local (or paragraph) level and the global (or paper) level. Synthesis is all about collecting information from different sources and putting it together as one content.
*****[Florida has a high STD prevalence of sexually transmitted illnesses, and Miami Dade County is one of the most affected by this problem. I’m collaborating with a Miami-Dade County community-based clinic, bringing awareness to the community about sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and offering testing along with that awareness. The organization’s mission is to provide patients with quality and affordable care to allow the community to have a safer, more enjoyable life. The clinic’s vision is to create awareness in the community about the risk of having unprotected sex and the need to stop STDs transmission. I want to explore the effect of education interventions for the prevention and treatment of STDs in young adults.]****
Follow these guidelines when completing each component of this assignment:
Title Page
Introduce the Practice Problem
Practice Problem Statement
Describe the Significance of the Practice Problem at the National Level (1 paragraph)
Synthesis of Evidence to Support the Evidence-Based Intervention for the Selected Practice Problem. Include 3 Current LEVEL I, II, or III Peer-Reviewed Primary Research Studies and/or Systematic Reviews.
Synthesis of the Literature (2 paragraphs).
Main Points/Salient Themes That Emerge from the Sources (Cited).
Compare and Contrast Main Points /Themes from All Sources (Cited).
Support for Evidence-Based Intervention (1 paragraph).
Objective Rationale for the Intervention Based on the Literature.
Summary Table of Evidence to Address the Evidence-Based Intervention for the Selected Practice Problem Using the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Evidence Summary Tool. Include as an appendix.
Reference Page with Complete References for the 3 Sources of Research Evidence, Including the Permalink
APA Formatting/ References
APA Standards for Scholarly Papers
Level I Headings are included
All policies related to plagiarism must be observed.
Assignment Grading Rubric: Evidence Synthesis and Tables (140 pts).
Practice Problem Requirements: 1. State the Practice Problem. 2. Describe the significance of the practice problem at the national level. (Cite all sources).
Includes all data requirements and provides an in-depth discussion about the practice problem.
Evidence Synthesis to Support the Evidence-Based Intervention Requirements: 1. State the Main themes in the findings that emerge from the sources (Cited). 2. Contrast the main points from the sources (Cited). 3. Present an objective rationale for the intervention based on the literature.
Includes all requirements and provides an in-depth synthesis of research evidence supporting the evidence-based Intervention.
Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Table Requirements: 1. Enter the information for the Three Research Studies. 2. Complete all sections and identify the quality and the levels of evidence.
Includes all requirements of the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Table and provides an in-depth evidence table presentation.
APA Style and Standards Requirements: 1. Uses appropriate Level I headers. 2. Reference Page with complete references including the 3 sources of research evidence including the Permalink. 3. Reference and citations are in current APA style
Includes all requirements of APA style and standards.
Clarity of Writing Requirements: 1. Uses standard English grammar and sentence structure. 2. No spelling or typographical errors. 3. Organized presentation of ideas.
Includes all requirements of clarity of writing.
Practice Issues in STD’s Prevention and Treatment
I’m collaborating with a clinic specializing in the prevention and treatment of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), and I want to focus my project on the problems of this clinic. At the practicum location, I had the opportunity to speak with relevant stakeholders and decision-makers. They revealed that they are having issues affecting the health outcomes of preventative and treatment activities. Despite the multiple calls and all the efforts done by the clinical personnel, the patients’ follow-up continues to be a significant issue. It is common to find that some patients don’t return to the clinic for continued care until they have new symptoms or problems. According to the stakeholders, most of the patients are more focused on the STDs test and treatment and are less interested in the prevention behavior modification initiatives. After the discussion, I proposed that all clinical personnel be better trained on techniques to promote and implement community awareness and educational initiatives. Also is necessary to work directly on the education, screening, treatment, and prevention of susceptible populations, like the homeless, drug users, people with high-risk sexual behavior, and uninsured patients. More money is required for these activities, which will necessitate the involvement of the government and other supportive organizations (Kantor et al., 2020). Therefore, we must focus on sourcing funds before the implementation.
PICOT Question: Do young adults with high-risk sexual behavior who start HIV Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) medication and sexual education program, compared with young adults not in the program, improve sexual behavior within the eight weeks of initiating treatment?
Population- Young adults with high-risk sexual behavior.
Intervention- HIV Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) medication and sexual education programs
Comparison- Young adults who are not in this program
Outcome-improved sexual behavior
Time- eight weeks.
Translation science model: knowledge to action
My current priority is to educate the vulnerable populations on the prevention of Sexually Transmitted Diseases so that less effort and resources will be required for treatment interventions. The education programs will challenge the population members to undergo screening and take all the necessary precautions to prevent new infections (Moton & Tawk, 2019). I feel I have the backing of the practicum site decision-makers since they are genuinely concerned about the health of our community and are open to new ideas that can improve the clinic’s outcome and reputation. I had previously worked with them and found their help to be excellent.
References
Moton, B., & Tawk, R. (2019). The relationship of sexual health education and sexual health risk behavioral outcomes among Florida teens. Florida Public Health Review, 13(1), 1.
https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/fphr/vol13/iss1/1/
Kantor, L., Levitz, N., & Holstrom, A. (2020). Support for sex education and teenage pregnancy prevention programs in the USA: results from a national survey of likely voters. Sex Education, 20(3), 239-251.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2019.1652807
Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix E
Research Evidence Appraisal Tool
Evidence level and quality rating: |
Enter level and quality rating
|
Article title: Article Title |
Number: Article Number |
Author(s): Authors names |
Publication date: Date |
Journal: Journal |
|
Setting: Setting |
Sample: Sample composition/size |
Does this evidence address my EBP question? ☐Yes ☐No-Do not proceed with appraisal of this evidence |
|
Is this study: ☐QuaNtitative (collection, analysis, and reporting of numerical data) Measurable data (how many; how much; or how often) used to formulate facts, uncover patterns in research, and generalize results from a larger sample population; provides observed effects of a program, problem, or condition, measured precisely, rather than through researcher interpretation of data. Common methods are surveys, face-to-face structured interviews, observations, and reviews of records or documents. Statistical tests are used in data analysis. Go to Section I: QuaNtitative ☐QuaLitative (collection, analysis, and reporting of narrative data) Rich narrative documents are used for uncovering themes; describes a problem or condition from the point of view of those experiencing it. Common methods are focus groups, individual interviews (unstructured or semi structured), and participation/observations. Sample sizes are small and are determined when data saturation is achieved. Data saturation is reached when the researcher identifies that no new themes emerge and redundancy is occurring. Synthesis is used in data analysis. Often a starting point for studies when little research exists; may use results to design empirical studies. The researcher describes, analyzes, and interprets reports, descriptions, and observations from participants. Go to Section II: QuaLitative ☐Mixed methods (results reported both numerically and narratively) Both quaNtitative and quaLitative methods are used in the study design. Using both approaches, in combination, provides a better understanding of research problems than using either approach alone. Sample sizes vary based on methods used. Data collection involves collecting and analyzing both quaNtitative and quaLitative data in a single study or series of studies. Interpretation is continual and can influence stages in the research process. Go to Section III: Mixed Methods |
Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix E
Research Evidence Appraisal Tool
Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix E
Research Evidence Appraisal Tool
The Johns Hopkins Hospital/ The Johns Hopkins University
Section I: QuaNtitative |
||
Level of Evidence (Study Design) |
||
Is this a report of a single research study? A
|
☐ Yes |
☐ No Go to B |
1. Was there manipulation of an independent variable? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
2. Was there a control group? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
3. Were study participants randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
If Yes to questions 1, 2, and 3, this is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or experimental study. |
LEVEL I |
|
If Yes to questions 1 and 2 and No to question 3 or Yes to question 1 and No to questions 2 and 3, this is quasi-experimental. (Some degree of investigator control, some manipulation of an independent variable, lacks random assignment to groups, and may have a control group). |
LEVEL II |
|
If No to questions 1, 2, and 3, this is nonexperimental. (No manipulation of independent variable; can be descriptive, comparative, or correlational; often uses secondary data). |
LEVEL III |
|
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question: Enter Text Here |
||
Skip to the Appraisal of QuaNtitative Research Studies section |
Section I: QuaNtitative (continued) |
||
Is this a summary of multiple sources of research evidence? |
☐Yes Continue |
☐No Use Appendix F |
1. Does it employ a comprehensive search strategy and rigorous appraisal method? If this study includes research, nonresearch, and experiential evidence, it is an integrative review (see Appendix F). |
☐Yes Continue |
☐No Use Appendix F |
2. For systematic reviews and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (see descriptions below): B
|
||
a. Are all studies included RCTs? |
☐LEVEL I |
|
b. Are the studies a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental, or quasi-experimental only? |
☐LEVEL II |
|
c. Are the studies a combination of RCTs, quasi-experimental, and nonexperimental, or non- experimental only? |
☐LEVEL III |
|
A systematic review employs a search strategy and a rigorous appraisal method, but does not generate an effect size. A meta-analysis , or systematic review with meta-analysis, combines and analyzes results from studies to generate a new statistic: the effect size. |
||
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question: Enter Text Here |
||
Skip to the Appraisal of Systematic Review (With or Without a Meta-Analysis) section |
Appraisal of QuaNtitative Research Studies |
|||
Does the researcher identify what is known and not known about the problem and how the study will address any gaps in knowledge? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
|
Was the purpose of the study clearly presented? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
|
Was the literature review current (most sources within the past five years or a seminal study)? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
|
Was sample size sufficient based on study design and rationale? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
|
If there is a control group: · Were the characteristics and/or demographics similar in both the control and intervention groups? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
☐N/A |
· If multiple settings were used, were the settings similar? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
☐N/A |
· Were all groups equally treated except for the intervention group(s)? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
☐N/A |
Are data collection methods described clearly? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
|
Were the instruments reliable (Cronbach’s [alpha] > 0.70)? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
☐N/A |
Was instrument validity discussed? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
☐N/A |
If surveys or questionnaires were used, was the response rate > 25%? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
☐N/A |
Were the results presented clearly? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
|
If tables were presented, was the narrative consistent with the table content? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
☐N/A |
Were study limitations identified and addressed? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
|
Were conclusions based on results? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
|
Complete the Quality Rating for QuaNtitative Studies section |
Appraisal of Systematic Review (With or Without Meta-Analysis) |
||
Were the variables of interest clearly identified? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Was the search comprehensive and reproducible? · Key search terms stated |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
· Multiple databases searched and identified |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
· Inclusion and exclusion criteria stated |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Was there a flow diagram that included the number of studies eliminated at each level of review? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Were details of included studies presented (design, sample, methods, results, outcomes, strengths, and limitations)? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Were methods for appraising the strength of evidence (level and quality) described? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Were conclusions based on results? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
· Results were interpreted |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
· Conclusions flowed logically from the interpretation and systematic review question |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Did the systematic review include a section addressing limitations and how they were addressed? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Complete the Quality Rating for QuaNtitative Studies section (below) |
Quality Rating for QuaNtitative Studies |
Circle the appropriate quality rating below: A High quality: Consistent, generalizable results; sufficient sample size for the study design; adequate control; definitive conclusions; consistent recommendations based on comprehensive literature review that includes thorough reference to scientific evidence. B Good quality: Reasonably consistent results; sufficient sample size for the study design; some control, and fairly definitive conclusions; reasonably consistent recommendations based on fairly comprehensive literature review that includes some reference to scientific evidence. C Low quality or major flaws: Little evidence with inconsistent results; insufficient sample size for the study design; conclusions cannot be drawn. |
Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice – Johns Hopkins Research Appraisal Tool
Appendix E
Research Evidence Appraisal Tool
Section II: QuaLitative |
||
Level of Evidence (Study Design) |
||
A
Is this a report of a single research study? |
☐ Yes this is Level III |
☐ No go to II B |
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question: Enter Text Here |
||
Complete the Appraisal of Single QuaLitative Research Study section (below) |
Appraisal of a Single QuaLitative Research Study |
||
Was there a clearly identifiable and articulated: · Purpose? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
· Research question? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
· Justification for method(s) used? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
· Phenomenon that is the focus of the research? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Were study sample participants representative? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Did they have knowledge of or experience with the research area? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Were participant characteristics described? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Was sampling adequate, as evidenced by achieving saturation of data? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Data analysis: · Was a verification process used in every step by checking and confirming with participants the trustworthiness of analysis and interpretation? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
· Was there a description of how data were analyzed (i.e., method), by computer or manually? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Do findings support the narrative data (quotes)? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Do findings flow from research question to data collected to analysis undertaken? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Are conclusions clearly explained? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Skip to the Quality Rating for QuaLitative Studies section |
For summaries of multiple quaLitative research studies (meta-synthesis), was a comprehensive search strategy and rigorous appraisal method used?
|
☐ Yes Level III |
☐ No go to Appendix F |
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question: Enter Text Here |
||
Complete the Appraisal of Meta-Synthesis Studies section (below) |
Appraisal of Meta-Synthesis Studies |
||
Were the search strategy and criteria for selecting primary studies clearly defined? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Were findings appropriate and convincing? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Was a description of methods used to: · Compare findings from each study? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
· Interpret data? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Did synthesis reflect: |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
· New insights? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
· Discovery of essential features of phenomena? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
· A fuller understanding of the phenomena? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Was sufficient data presented to support the interpretations? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
Complete the Quality Rating for QuaLititative Studies section (below) |
Quality Rating for QuaLitative Studies |
Select the appropriate quality rating below: No commonly agreed-on principles exist for judging the quality of quaLitative studies. It is a subjective process based on the extent to which study data contributes to synthesis and how much information is known about the researchers’ efforts to meet the appraisal criteria. For meta-synthesis, there is preliminary agreement that quality assessments should be made before synthesis to screen out poor-quality studies1. ☐A/B High/Good quality is used for single studies and meta-syntheses2. The report discusses efforts to enhance or evaluate the quality of the data and the overall inquiry in sufficient detail; and it describes the specific techniques used to enhance the quality of the inquiry. Evidence of some or all of the following is found in the report: · Transparency: Describes how information was documented to justify decisions, how data were reviewed by others, and how themes and categories were formulated. · Diligence: Reads and rereads data to check interpretations; seeks opportunity to find multiple sources to corroborate evidence. · Verification: The process of checking, confirming, and ensuring methodologic coherence. · Self-reflection and self-scrutiny: Being continuously aware of how a researcher’s experiences, background, or prejudices might shape and bias analysis and interpretations. · Participant-driven inquiry: Participants shape the scope and breadth of questions; analysis and interpretation give voice to those who participated. · Insightful interpretation: Data and knowledge are linked in meaningful ways to relevant literature. ☐C Lower-quality studies contribute little to the overall review of findings and have few, if any, of the features listed for High/Good quality. |
1 https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/SysRev/!SSL!/WebHelp/6_4_ASSESSMENT_OF_QUALIT A TIVE_RESEARCH.htm 2 Adapted from Polit & Beck (2017).
Section III: Mixed Methods |
||
Level of Evidence (Study Design) |
||
You will need to appraise both the quaNtitative and quaLitative parts of the study independently, before appraising the study in its entirety. |
||
1. Evaluate the quaNitative part of the study using Section I. |
Level |
Quality |
Insert here the level of evidence and overall quality for this part: |
Level | Quality |
2. Evaluate the quaLitative part of the study using Section II. |
Level |
Quality |
Insert here the level of evidence and overall quality for this part: |
Level | Quality |
3. To determine the level of evidence, circle the appropriate study design: |
||
· Explanatory sequential designs collect quaNtitative data first, followed by the quaLitative data; and their purpose is to explain quaNtitative results using quaLitative findings. The level is determined based on the level of the quaNtitative part. · Exploratory sequential designs collect quaLitative data first, followed by the quaNtitative data; and their purpose is to explain quaLitative findings using the quaNtitative results. The level is determined based on the level of the quaLitative part, and it is always Level III. · Convergent parallel designs collect the quaLitative and quaNtitative data concurrently for the purpose of providing a more complete understanding of a phenomenon by merging both datasets. These designs are Level III. · Multiphasic designs collect quaLitative and quaNtitative data over more than one phase, with each phase informing the next phase. These designs are Level III. |
||
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question: Enter Text Here |
||
Complete the Appraisal of Mixed Methods Studies section (below) |
Appraisal of Mixed Methods Studies |
|||
Was the mixed-methods research design relevant to address the quaNtitative and quaLitative research questions (or objectives)? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
☐N/A |
Was the research design relevant to address the quaNtitative and quaLitative aspects of the mixed-methods question (or objective)? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
☐N/A |
For convergent parallel designs, was the integration of quaNtitative and quaLitative data (or results) relevant to address the research question or objective? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
☐N/A |
For convergent parallel designs, were the limitations associated with the integration (for example, the divergence of quaLitative and quaNtitative data or results) sufficiently addressed? |
☐ Yes |
☐ No |
☐N/A |
Complete the Quality Rating for Mixed-Method Studies section (below) |
3 National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (2015). Appraising Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Studies included in Mixed Studies Reviews: The MMAT. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. (Updated 20 July, 2015) Retrieved from http://www.nccmt.ca/ resources/search/232
Quality Rating for Mixed-Methods Studies |
Circle the appropriate quality rating below A High quality: Contains high-quality quaNtitative and quaLitative study components; highly relevant study design; relevant integration of data or results; and careful consideration of the limitations of the chosen approach. B Good quality: Contains good-quality quaNtitative and quaLitative study components; relevant study design; moderately relevant integration of data or results; and some discussion of limitations of integration. C Low quality or major flaws: Contains low quality quaNtitative and quaLitative study components; study design not relevant to research questions or objectives; poorly integrated data or results; and no consideration of limits of integration. |
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS
Who We Are
We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched for a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help with your coursework.Do you handle any type of coursework?
Yes. We have posted our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill out our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications, and future communication.Is it hard to Place an Order?
- 1. Click on “Order Now” on the main Menu and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- 2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the “PAPER INFORMATION” section and the system will calculate your order price/cost.
- 3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- 4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- 5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.
Assignment: Evidence Synthesis and Tables
SCORE A+ WITH HELP FROM OUR PROFESSIONAL WRITERS – Assignment: Evidence Synthesis and Tables
We will process your orders through multiple stages and checks to ensure that what we are delivering to you, in the end, is something that is precise as you envisioned it. All of our essay writing service products are 100% original, ensuring that there is no plagiarism in them. The sources are well-researched and cited so it is interesting. Our goal is to help as many students as possible with their assignments, i.e. our prices are affordable and services premium. Assignment: Evidence Synthesis and Tables
- Discussion Questions (DQ)
Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, including a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words. Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source. One or two-sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words. I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses. Assignment: Evidence Synthesis and Tables
- Weekly Participation
Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately. In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies. Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work). Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week. Assignment: Evidence Synthesis and Tables
- APA Format and Writing Quality
Familiarize yourself with the APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in Loud-cloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required). Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation. I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition.
- Use of Direct Quotes
I discourage over-utilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Master’s level and deduct points accordingly. As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content. It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source.
- LopesWrite Policy
For assignments that need to be submitted to Lopes Write, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me. Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes. Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own? Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in Loud-cloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score.
- Late Policy
The university’s policy on late assignments is a 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies. Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances. If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect. I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension. As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading. Assignment: Evidence Synthesis and Tables
- Communication
Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me: Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class. Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours. Assignment: Evidence Synthesis and Tables
- Guarantee
- Zero Plagiarism
- On-time delivery
- A-Grade Papers
- Free Revision
- 24/7 Support
- 100% Confidentiality
- Professional Writers
- Assignment: Evidence Synthesis and Tables
- Services Offered
- Custom paper writing
- Question and answers
- Essay paper writing
- Editing and proofreading
- Plagiarism removal services
- Multiple answer questions
- Assignment: Evidence Synthesis and Tables
We will process your orders through multiple stages and checks to ensure that what we are delivering to you, in the end, is something that is precise as you envisioned it. All of our essay writing service products are 100% original, ensuring that there is no plagiarism in them. The sources are well-researched and cited so it is interesting. Our goal is to help as many students as possible with their assignments, i.e. our prices are affordable and services premium. Assignment: Evidence Synthesis and Tables Assignment: Evidence Synthesis and Tables
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order a custom-written, affordable, plagiarism-free paper