Literature Search Rapid Critical Appraisal and Summary

I attached the two research studies related to the topic and PICOT questions that you developed in Week 2 I used. For this assignment, you will locate two research studies related to the topic and PICOT questions that you developed in Week 2. The articles must be current (within the last five years), and one article must be quantitative, and one article must be qualitative. For this assignment all articles must be related to the field of nursing. Article choice is very important, therefore: There are two parts to this assignment. Part 1: Complete a Rapid Critical Appraisal Checklist EditEditDownload Rapid Critical Appraisal Checklist Part II: Write a summary (one- to two- pages) Articles used for this assignment cannot be used for the other assignments. The selected articles should be original research studies. Review articles, concept analysis, meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, integrative review, and systemic review articles should not be used. Mixed-methods studies should not be used. Select one each: qualitative and quantitative research articles. Create a Rapid Critical Appraisal Checklist for the two research articles (one column per article). Complete with brief, concise, summarized information. Identify differences between quantitative and qualitative designs and research methods. Describe the differences in your article’s quantitative and qualitative designs and methods. Carefully review the rubric before you submit. This summary is using your own words to examine the differences specifically between your articles. Use current APA Style for your summary paper and to cite your sources. Submit the checklist and summary.NURS_350_OL – NURS350-Literature Review with Rapid Critical Appraisal Checklists
NURS_350_OL – NURS350-Literature Review with Rapid Critical Appraisal Checklists
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTwo substantive research articles
(one qualitative and one quantitative) are clearly identified as original research studies.
10 to >8.9 ptsMeets or Exceeds ExpectationsTwo quality, substantive articles (one qualitative and one quantitative) are selected and are suitable original research studies. 8.9 to >7.5 ptsMostly Meets ExpectationsTwo articles (one qualitative and one quantitative) are selected and are mostly substantive, but at least one is not a suitable original research study, or is not sufficiently substantive. 7.5 to >5.9 ptsBelow ExpectationsOne article is selected and identified as qualitative or quantitative research, or it is not a suitable original research study. 5.9 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsArticles are not original research; one qualitative and one quantitative article are not identified.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescription of the research problem and purpose of each research article
40 to >35.6 ptsMeets or Exceeds ExpectationsThe research problem and the purpose for each article are expertly examined. 35.6 to >30.0 ptsMostly Meets ExpectationsThe research problem and the purpose for each article are adequately examined with minor omissions or errors. 30 to >23.6 ptsBelow ExpectationsThe research problem and the purpose for each article are vague, absent or not identified, and contain major omissions or errors. 23.6 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsThe research problem and its purpose are not identified for any of the articles.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescription of the research methods for each research article
30 to >26.7 ptsMeets or Exceeds ExpectationsAn extensive description of the variables, the sample, and the research methods is clearly presented for each article. 26.7 to >22.5 ptsMostly Meets ExpectationsAn adequate description of the, variables, the sample, and the research methods is presented for most articles with minor omissions or errors. 22.5 to >17.7 ptsBelow ExpectationsAn unsatisfactory description of the variables, sample, and the research methods is presented for both articles with major omissions or errors. 17.7 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsA description of the variables, the sample, and the research methods is not presented for any of the articles.
30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummary of the findings/conclusions/themes for each research article
40 to >35.6 ptsMeets or Exceeds ExpectationsAn expertly examined investigation of the findings, themes, and conclusions for both articles is skillfully presented for each article. 35.6 to >30.0 ptsMostly Meets ExpectationsAn adequate investigation of the findings, themes, and conclusions for both is satisfactorily presented with minor omissions or errors. 30 to >23.6 ptsBelow ExpectationsAn unsatisfactory investigation of the findings, themes, and conclusions for both articles is provided with major omissions or errors, or only one of the articles is investigated and presented satisfactorily. 23.6 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsA description of the findings, themes, and conclusions, is not presented for either article.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescription of the similarities and differences among the research articles
60 to >53.4 ptsMeets or Exceeds ExpectationsThe description of the similarities and differences among the research articles is clear and thorough. 53.4 to >45.0 ptsMostly Meets ExpectationsThe description of the similarities and differences among the research articles is adequate with minor omissions or errors. 45 to >35.4 ptsBelow ExpectationsThe description of the similarities and differences among the research articles is inadequate with major omissions or errors. 35.4 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsThe description of the similarities and differences among the research articles is not provided.
60 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA
10 to >8.9 ptsMeets or Exceeds ExpectationsUses APA Style accurately and consistently to cite sources with only 1–2 errors. Sources are expertly cited and are peer-reviewed, relevant sources. Meets all formatting requirements (length and style) of the assignment. 8.9 to >7.5 ptsMostly Meets ExpectationsUses APA Style with minor citation violations with 3–4 errors. Sources are somewhat relevant, but may be limited in scholarly nature. Meets most formatting requirements (length and style) of the assignment. 7.5 to >5.9 ptsBelow ExpectationsReflects incomplete knowledge of APA Style with 5–6 errors. Sources are not cited, or there are many errors. Sources are not scholarly in nature. Meets most formatting requirements (length and style) of the assignment. 5.9 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsDoes not use APA Style, or there are pervasive errors throughout the paper. Does not meet formatting requirements (length and style) of the assignment.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMechanics
10 to >8.9 ptsMeets or Exceeds ExpectationsThe writing demonstrates a sophisticated clarity, conciseness, and correctness; includes thorough details and information; and is extremely well organized. Punctuation, spelling, and capitalization are all correct. There are minimal to no errors. 8.9 to >7.5 ptsMostly Meets ExpectationsThe writing is accomplished in terms of clarity and conciseness, includes sufficient details, and is well organized, but it may contain a few errors. Punctuation, spelling, and capitalization are generally correct with not many errors. 7.5 to >5.9 ptsBelow ExpectationsThe writing lacks clarity or conciseness, contains numerous errors, and lacks organization. Errors in punctuation, spelling, and capitalization detract from the readability of the paper 5.9 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsThe writing is unfocused, rambling, or contains serious errors; lacks detail and relevant data and information; and is poorly organized. There are many distracting errors in punctuation, spelling, and capitalization.
10 pts