Literature Evaluation Table

Literature Evaluation Table

Student Name:

Change Topic (2-3 sentences):

BUY A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

 

Criteria Article 1 Article 2 Article 3 Article 4
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and

Permalink or Working Link to Access Article

 

 

 

Article Title and Year Published

 

Research Questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes/Aim of Study

 

Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)

 

Literature Evaluation Table
Setting/Sample

 

Methods: Intervention/Instruments

 

Analysis

 

Key Findings

 

Recommendations

 

Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP/Capstone Project

 

 

 

Criteria Article 5 Article 6 Article 7 Article 8
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and

Permalink or Working Link to Access Article

 

 

 

Article Title and Year Published

 

Research Questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes/Aim of Study

 

Literature Evaluation Table
Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)

 

Setting/Sample

 

Methods: Intervention/Instruments

 

Analysis

 

Key Findings

 

Recommendations

 

Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP/Capstone

 

Literature Evaluation Table

 

 

 

Literature Evaluation Table

In nursing practice, accurate identification and application of research is essential to achieving successful outcomes. Being able to articulate the information and successfully summarize relevant peer-reviewed articles in a scholarly fashion helps to support the student’s ability and confidence to further develop and synthesize the progressively more complex assignments that constitute the components of the course change proposal capstone project. Literature Evaluation Table.

For this assignment, the student will provide a synopsis of eight peer-reviewed articles from nursing journals using an evaluation table that determines the level and strength of evidence for each of the eight articles. The articles should be current within the last 5 years and closely relate to the PICOT statement developed earlier in this course. The articles may include quantitative research, descriptive analyses, longitudinal studies, or meta-analysis articles. A systematic review may be used to provide background information for the purpose or problem identified in the proposed capstone project. Use the “Literature Evaluation Table” resource to complete this assignment.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and in-text citations and references should be presented using APA documentation guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.

AttachmentsNRS-490-RS-LiteratureEvaluationTable.docx
RUBRIC

Attempt Start Date: 16-Dec-2019 at 12:00:00 AM

Due Date: 22-Dec-2019 at 11:59:59 PM

Maximum Points: 75.0

Literature Evaluation Table – Rubric

No of Criteria: 13 Achievement Levels: 5CriteriaAchievement LevelsDescriptionPercentageUnsatisfactory 0-71%0.00 %Less Than Satisfactory 72-75%75.00 %Satisfactory 76-79%79.00 %Good 80-89%89.00 %Excellent 90-100%100.00 %Article Selection100.0     Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article5.0Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is not included.Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present.Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is clearly provided and well developed.Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.Article Title and Year Published 5.0Article title and year published section is not included.Article title and year published section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Article title and year published section is present.Article title and year published section is clearly provided and well developed.Article title and year published section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of Study10.0Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is not included.Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present.Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is clearly provided and well developed.Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)5.0Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is not included.Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present.Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is clearly provided and well developed.Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.Setting or Sample5.0Setting or sample section is not included.Setting or sample section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Setting or sample section is present.Setting or sample section is clearly provided and well developed.Setting or sample section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.Methods: Intervention or Instruments5.0Methods: Intervention or instruments section is not included.Methods: Intervention or instruments section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Methods: Intervention or instruments section is present.Methods: Intervention or instruments section is clearly provided and well developed.Methods: Intervention or instruments section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.Analysis10.0Analysis section is not included.Analysis section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Analysis section is present.Analysis section is clearly provided and well developed.Analysis section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.Key Findings10.0Key findings section is not included.Key findings section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Key findings section is present.Key findings section is clearly provided and well developed.Key findings section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details. Literature Evaluation Table. Recommendations10.0Recommendations section is not included.Recommendations section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Recommendations section is present.Recommendations section is clearly provided and well developed.Recommendations section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or Capstone10.0Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is not included.Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is present.Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is clearly provided and well developed.Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.Presentation10.0The piece is not neat or organized, and it does not include all required elements.The work is not neat and includes minor flaws or omissions of required elements.The overall appearance is general, and major elements are missing.The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor flaws or missing elements.The work is well presented and includes all required elements. The overall appearance is neat and professional.Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)10.0Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)5.0Sources are not documented.Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.Total Percentage  100 Literature Evaluation Table

Literature Evaluation Table

Student Name:

Change Topic (2-3 sentences):

 

Criteria Article 1 Article 2 Article 3 Article 4
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and

Permalink or Working Link to Access Article

 

 

 

Article Title and Year Published

 

Research Questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes/Aim of Study

 

Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)

 

Setting/Sample

 

Methods: Intervention/Instruments

 

Analysis

 

Key Findings

 

Recommendations

 

Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP/Capstone Project

 

 

 

Criteria Article 5 Article 6 Article 7 Article 8
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and

Permalink or Working Link to Access Article

 

 

 

Article Title and Year Published

 

Research Questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes/Aim of Study

 

Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)

 

Setting/Sample

 

Methods: Intervention/Instruments

 

Analysis

 

Key Findings

 

Recommendations

 

Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP/Capstone

 

 

\

Delusional Disorders

Examine Case Study: Pakistani Female With Delusional Thought Processes

BACKGROUND:

The client is a 34-year-old Pakistani female who moved to the United States in her late teens/early 20s. She is currently in an “arranged” marriage (her husband was selected for her since she was 9 years old). She presents to your office today following a 21 day hospitalization for what was diagnosed as “brief psychotic disorder.” She was given this diagnosis as her symptoms have persisted for less than 1 month.

Prior to admission, she was reporting visions of Allah, and over the course of a week, she believed that she was the prophet Mohammad. She believed that she would deliver the world from sin. Her husband became concerned about her behavior to the point that he was afraid of leaving their 4 children with her. One evening, she was “out of control” which resulted in his calling the police and her subsequent admission to an inpatient psych unit.

During today’s assessment, she appears quite calm, and insists that the entire incident was “blown out of proportion.” She denies that she believed herself to be the prophet Mohammad and states that her husband was just out to get her because he never loved her and wanted an “American wife” instead of her. She tells you that she knows this because the television is telling her so.

She currently weighs 140 lbs, and is 5’ 5”

SUBJECTIVE:

Client reports that her mood is “good.” She denies auditory/visual hallucinations, but believes that the television does talk to her. She believes that Allah sends her messages through the TV. At times throughout the clinical interview, she becomes hostile towards the PMHNP, but then calms down.

You reviewed her hospital records and find that she has been medically worked up by a physician who reported her to be in overall good health. Lab studies were all within normal limits.

Client admits that she stopped taking her Risperdal about a week after she got out of the hospital because she thinks her husband is going to poison her so that he can marry an American woman.

MENTAL STATUS EXAM:

The client is alert, oriented to person, place, time, and event. She is dressed appropriately for the weather and time of year. She demonstrates no noteworthy mannerisms, gestures, or tics. Her speech is slow and at times, interrupted by periods of silence. Self-reported mood is euthymic. Affect constricted. Although the client denies visual or auditory hallucinations, she appears to be “listening” to something. Delusional and paranoid thought processes as described, above. Insight and judgment are impaired. She is currently denying suicidal or homicidal ideation.

The PMHNP administers the PANSS which reveals the following scores:

-40 for the positive symptoms scale

-20 for the negative symptom scale

-60 for general psychopathology scale

Diagnosis: Schizophrenia, paranoid type

The Assignment:

With Introduction and a Conclusion.

Examine Case Study: Pakistani Woman with Delusional Thought Processes. You will be asked to make three decisions concerning the medication to prescribe to this client. Be sure to consider factors that might impact the client’s pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes.

At each decision point stop to complete the following:

· Decision #1

o Which decision did you select?

o Why did you select this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

o What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

o Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #1 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?

· Decision #2

o Why did you select this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

o What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

o Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #2 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?

· Decision #3

o Why did you select this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

o What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

o Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #3 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?

Also include how ethical considerations might impact your treatment plan and communication with clients.

Note: Support your rationale with a minimum of three to five academic resources no more than five years old.